Faceman...On another note,
What are yuour feelings about the Chief Justice's surprise stance on the issue.
I and others thought it would be up to Kennedy.
Perhaps we have another Sandra Day O Conner. Shalom
I don't like politics on the Supreme Court. I am not naive and realize that a conservative person will have different leanings than a liberal person, and therefore interpret constitutionality a bit differently, but I would like to see much less political involvement.
I believe the decision was the correct one, and give kudos to Roberts for voting for what was right rather than giving in to his political leanings.
However, even though I believe the decision was correct, the case was merely to decide the constitutionality of the law - not the merits of the law.
I still oppose Obamacare and think it should be repealed if it cannot be modified to be viable. As I think I said earlier, you are living in a fantasy world if you think it is viable as it stands. Your interpretation of the costs is out of date and incorrect. Even the Democrats are admitting the cost is going to be far higher than the initial hype, which was lies of course, and many Democrats have become as concerned with the real cost as the Republicans have been all along. Nothing is free, which you and most liberals don't seem to be able to fully grasp. There is a limit on how much you can tax the 50% of the population that pays tax. We are not able to meet our obligations now with 50% of the people carrying 100% of the load. All of Obama's proposals reflect his intent to reduce that even farther, having only 40% of the people carry 100% of the load. That is insanity, quite frankly. Small business formation and expansion, and their accompanying job creation, is already greatly stifled by excessive taxes and regulations. Liberals do not seem to understand that 10 people or entities paying a 25% tax generates more revenues than 4 people or entities paying a 50% tax. I don't know if liberals have poor math skills or can't afford a $10 calculator or what their problem is. In any case, the first order of business should be to get our economy in order - then look for ways to improve our healthcare system and/or our quality of life. You guys are putting the cart before the horse. You are concerned about your patients, which I understand, but if the economy were robust, they could get good jobs with good benefits, which would resolve much of their problem. Sure, pre-existing conditions should not be an issue, and sure, there should be no catastophic limits, but those kinds of issues can be attaacked without jeopardizing our national economic condition and prolonging the recession, which quite frankly, economic formulas aside, is actually a depression where the rubber meets the road.
We need a starting point to resolve our healthcare issues. And Obamacare COULD be a starting point (as ANY plan could, regardless of its origin). But that is in theory. But when it comes to practical applications, as I said in an earlier post, we are too polarized in this point of history to modify that plan to the extent it needs to be modified to make it viable. That is why it will be repealed at some point. I wish the situation were different - I wish we could take that proposal, modify it, implement it, and move on down the road. But I think it is unrealistic and idealistic to seriously consider that possible at this time...