Supreme Court upholds Obamacare

I'm not going to say this doesn't set wonderful precedents. But there was nothing there before that stopped states from implementing single-payer systems. They get more funding now, but they have always had the right to do as they please in this regard. States can refuse Medicaid funds.

The problem is that once forced to participate in this system, people might find all their fears validated.

Coming from a country with a long history of universal healthcare I am more than puzzled by the significance ot the issue. I know it is somewhat simplified but why are Americans not against socialized police forces or fire brigades?My heart breaks every time I read about families who have lost everything theyve owned because of treating an illness or a recovery from an accident. That is exactly what society is for - to take care of each and everyone of us in times of need.

Because there's no private police forces or fire brigades around to bribe politicians into opposing socialized police forces or fire brigades.

Jon notes: 70% of this country are considered poor by the fuckers at the top.Actually the Supremes kind of neutered the expansion.- nate

I'm not against universal socialized healthcare. And this mandate might help our country in that direction. But this mandate is not socialized healthcare.It's really just a mess. Perhaps a necessary mess for the time being; but still a mess.

So what does that leave the stockholders of the insurer's for a net profit? It will likely eliminate private insurers, expanding the role of government to become public insurer. It will necessarily raise the taxes of the private sector who ultimately fund the ever expanding totalian regime ruling the former republic of the people.It will ultimately lead to Canada's socialized medicine model, where healthcare can be very difficult to get due to the lack of MD's, and options which the US has afforded.

Let's hope so! Let's hope so! Let's hope so!Edited by Jon, : Added more hope...

Roberts, a relatively conservative Republican may be turning the tables on the activist liberal judges on the court who have rendered judgements tainted with politics.Roberts may be, of necessity, applying a bit of political chess here with the liberal members. He may be considering the ramifications of the broken promises of Obama to increase taxes and other negative factors of the bill which will be aired by election day.

So Obama promised to raise taxes and has broken that promise?

Yes, again, because the sheeple who believed Obama's campaign promises of no tax raises for them will be also paying for all of this, via raised taxes, etc. Edited by Buzsaw, : Spelling

quote:

---

Buzsaw in Message 39:

​

... promises of Obama to increase taxes...

---

I'm more than a little confused by this...Anyone else?

I mis-spoke. I mant to say who promised not to raise taxes.

Wasn't that Daddy Bush?And what is wrong with higher taxes if you actually get a return on the investment in taxes?Edited by jar, : Fix blame

It's not difficult at all to receive treatment in Canada.But even if it were, it's both comical and reprehensible that you would suggest that a wait time is somehow worse than letting poor people just not get treatment. Because that's the current US system. Resources are limited in the US just as much as anywhere else, there aren't an infinite supply of doctors anywhere. The US prioritizes treatment based on ability to pay, while Canada prioritizes treatment based on medical need.