In a landmark decision, both legally and politically, the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld President Barack Obama's sweeping healthcare law, including the central mandate that individuals must buy health insurance.
The contentious portion of the law — which drew disputes among Congressional lawmakers in 2009 and was fought on legal grounds by Attorneys General across the United States since — is considered the “heart” of the law, according to CBS.
“The decision creates some certainty surrounding federal health care policy, allowing federal and state rulemakers to, for now, implement this law,” CBS said.
According to the Associated Press, the high court “rejected arguments that Congress went too far in requiring most Americans to have health insurance or pay a penalty.”
In the United States there are 30 million people today who go without insurance. Through the mandate, the law hopes to stem this problem, as well as .
Do you agree with the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling, which allows for lawmakers to mandate Americans purchase health insurance? Take our poll and share your thoughts in the comments.
Oh, and Mr. C. always be sure to have your insurance card, checkbook and credit card with you at all times because under your belief system hospitals could refuse to provide you with the "commodity" of medical care without insurance or an extremely hefty deposit.
Debbie my friend, I may turn my back on others but that is my business and not yours. Why is what you want any better? It is not better, in fact, it is worse. While you claim I turn my back on others, you want to take what is not yours by force so you can give it to those you deem deserve it more than I do. The logic in this would shock and surprise me if I was ignorant to immorality throughout history, but I am not. @Debbie; Government cannot "give" what it hasn't already taken from others. If you and Maria want to form a healthcare cooperative while I may turn my back on you, I will not stop you. What is stopping people like you and Maria from voluntarily putting together an organization to provide healthcare and/or insurance to whomever you wish? How do your desires to "help" others grant you a moral claim to the labor of others? Debbie, Maria, I doubt the only answer you will ever give to this question is just to restate your problem. But, your problems do not grant you the right to take from others what is not yours. Your ideas and whims do not grant you moral superiority to do what ever it is that you want to others. And the fact that you believe you can, tells everyone a whole lot about you. But unlike yourself, I am neither shocked nor surprised. History is full of false philanthropists no different than you or Maria. You idea of "good" is nothing more than government theft, and you and your kind redistribute the loot.
"If it is not a good law, then how come 98% of Massachusetts adults have health insurance, and 100% of Massachusetts children have health insurance? If we force companies to accept everyone, then more people will have health insurance. Shouldn't we want people to be able to always have access to health care?" @Debbie "The issue is people losing their homes or going into debt because they get sick and have no healthcare." Charles & Debbie, then why don't we mandate that government provide everybody with food, clothing and shelter while we are at it. And, why stop there? Why not mandate college, medical school, law school, community college, toilet paper, lawn mowers, electricity, oil, gas for cooking, dental, mental health services and counseling, etc??? "If a mandate was the solution, we could solve homelessness by mandating every homeless person buy a house." Do you know who said this? Barack Hussein Obama/Soetoro. http://youtu.be/CPf1syRNY_Y Was he right then, or now???
You say "I would agree that under both the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence affordable health care is a right.' Why don't you explain how it is an "unalienable right" as mentioned specifically in the Declaration of Independence so that we may all better understand your postition??? here's some help; http://www.unalienable.com/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights
I can believe what I say. I watch President Obama in action. I have seen the good he has done for the American people; trying to put us into a state of peace by leaving Iraq and Afghanistan, presenting the Affordable Care Act, putting us before him, etc. When Willard comes up with a plan, tell me about it.
Being penalized does not mean you've committed a crime? Then why a "penalty?" Why are you penalized if you haven't broken a law? If they fined you $1,000,000 would you feel the same way? So, can they penalize you for not breaking laws? How is this? Explain and teach me about "the law and it's application."
Under the S.C.'s rulings on the Commerce Clause the government can regulate ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING that passes through state lines, unless it's local apples or corn. But worse, even locally produced and consumed crops are not immune from the government's wrath as per the S.C.'s insane Wickard v. Filburn ruling. According to this logic, the government can regulate EVERYTHING & EVERYONE FOR ANY REASON ANYTIME IT WANTS. Doesn't this interpretation make you wonder why the 9th and 10th Amendments were ever written? Doesn't this interpretation ever make you wonder why a Bill of rights was ever ADDED to the Constitution? Doesn't this interpretations ever make you wonder why the Constitution was ever written in the first place if this was the ORIGINAL INTENT? Doesn't the fact that Congress can regulate everything make a Constitution unnecessary? Probably never crossed your mind did it? It makes no sense nor does it follows any logical or reasonable progression of ideas because it isn't logical. It's simply a ruse hiding the fact that government and the Supreme Court do whatever it is that they want, Constitutional, legal, moral or not any time they feel like it. See, the Constitution & your reading of all 900 pages of ObamaCare law just don't matter very much. They just do whatever they feel like. The Supreme Court's intepretation of "commerce Clause" is a complete joke, but you study the Commerce Clause for "fun", so you must know this already.
"I actually read all 974 pages of the bill. Maybe you should do the same!!" That's not the same as saying "I've read all relevant portions of the bill." I never watch Fox. Nor listen to talk radio. AND I read regularly. To quote: "Do not be so quick to judge." Live by your own words, lady.
"Mr. Smith, it is called a parallel. Sometimes the best way to learn history is the indirect way, through anecdotes and stories." It's also called B.S.
Sadly, what else can we expect from someone who WORSHIPS at the altar of BIG government! I'm guessing that Maria is an atheist, which is probably why she cannot understand our Founders and the Constitution, who understood that our "rights" are unalienable and come from GOD ("Divine Providence"). Maria believes that "rights" should be divvied out by government, because "We the PEOPLE," in her mind (according to her progressive hero Woodrow Wilson) and the DEM party, are too stupid to make our own decisions, be responsible for ourselves and decide how to spend our own money--INCLUDING being charitable to our neighbors and those around the world!!! p.s. Maria, those who rely on government to save them are going to end up eventually like the poor slugs who relied on the incompetent sorry DEM excuse for a mayor, of New Orleans, who was WARNED days in advance of Hurricane Katrina to evacuate the people!!!