*ObamaCare Ruled Constitutional*

The Supreme Court has ruled that Article I, section 8 of the Constitution is meaningless. What is the point of enumerating the powers granted to congress if in fact congress can do any damn thing it wants?

this is the line in the sand: I refuse to be coerced into such fascist policies and will defend my rights accordingly

is made by Ron Paul.

I will not comply to tyranny.

I will loudly counter this malice applied by Congress.

Even in the dissent, I am sad to say that the four "conservative" justices recognized, with some complaint, Stare Decisis, by which SCOTUS is in no way bound, and also kept using the phrase "power to tax and spend".

My friends, the Power to Tax clause is ONLY the power to Tax. It is NOT the power to spend. It gives the power to tax and RESTRICTS it to the three listed items.

And for those that aren't aware "provide for" does NOT mean "provide WITH", it means to "set aside for future use". "to save for". There's no SPENDING in the power to tax clause.

Our educational system has become so biased that even "conservative" judges don't get a lot of the basics right. It's as though the Federalist Papers and the original Webster's dictionary never existed. They have accepted many of the incorrect assertions made by "liberals" before their birth, rather than going back in time and understanding the document prior to its reinterpretation by these "liberals". The most important thing any law student can do is assume that everything that comes out of their professor's mouth regarding the Constitution is a purposeful lie.

I have Romneycare now. It is very expensive. The very very very cheapest option to comply is $12,000 per year and that still requires huge co-pays, co-insurance and a $10,000 deductible for many things.

Unemployment, especially for low-mid income people (say those who make $18 - 40K per year) is probably going to rise drastically. The mandatory healthcare cost added to the salary will make these people unhireable.

With a free market solution all but a pipedream, a single-payor system at this point would probably be economically less chaotic. It would screw with employment less and defund the HMO cartel.

I've talked to friends in Canada, UK and Spain and what happens is that everybody hires private doctors on top of the govt healthcare. So while you pay twice (and three times for private major medical), a free market of sort of does emerge on top of the govt system.

So it is still very expensive, but it would make it a level playing field for employers and eliminate some uncertainty (per Hayek's view, perhaps). The employees would be net-poorer with more taxes and higher medical costs, but perhaps employed.

What dismal crap this all is.

We're going to miss you.

So if you break the law and pay the penalty it is a tax.

If you comply than you pay premiums to private companies. Does paying premiums somehow offset the subsidies for the poor? I doubt anyone knows besides the architects of the system.

~God Bless the USA~

SCOTUS decided to classify it as a tax. If it was a tax, why wasn't it called a tax from the start?

...you mean?