Author Topic: Supreme Court Upholds Individual Mandate  (Read 14323 times)

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63977
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Supreme Court Upholds Individual Mandate
« Reply #100 on: June 28, 2012, 12:28:36 PM »
what is repeal defined as?   A "bill" that removed PART of it?   Some cannot be repealed - only the parts requiring funding can be ended by congress.

I think many people forget obamacare was

   1) Ratified by a republican house
   2) Ratified by the senate and president
   3) Confirmed as constitutional by Supreme Court
   4) modeled after Romneycare
   5) 'okay for states by not for nation', right?  now SCOTUS disagrees.

THe bill sucks, the repubs have no alternative, and this is now the law of the land.

Maybe people forget because you just made stuff up again. 

1.  It was passed by a Democrat controlled House, with 34 Democrats and all 178 Republicans voting against it.
2.  It was passed by a by a party-line vote in the Senate, 60-39. 
3.  Not upheld under the Commerce Clause, but as a tax, contrary to what the president and every Democrat contended when it was passed (that it wasn't a tax).

I need to find and post Skip's Rules again.   ::)

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102387
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: Supreme Court Upholds Individual Mandate
« Reply #101 on: June 28, 2012, 12:34:11 PM »
aah yes.  youre right, i forgot what year it was.

so to be clear, the american people chose dem for prez, house, and senate majorities.  they delivered obamacare.  maybe repubs should have offered better candidates that didn't suck on the lying bush tit.

then again, bush gave us roberts, who gave us obamacare, after being written by romney and sold by obama.  they're all on the same team ;)

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39900
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Supreme Court Upholds Individual Mandate
« Reply #102 on: June 28, 2012, 12:36:08 PM »
Maybe people forget because you just made stuff up again. 

1.  It was passed by a Democrat controlled House, with 34 Democrats and all 178 Republicans voting against it.
2.  It was passed by a by a party-line vote in the Senate, 60-39. 
3.  Not upheld under the Commerce Clause, but as a tax, contrary to what the president and every Democrat contended when it was passed (that it wasn't a tax).

I need to find and post Skip's Rules again.   ::)

180 is a liar and con man - it leaves to question as to why he worships obama like he does.   Fellow travelers engaged in deception and lies. 

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63977
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Supreme Court Upholds Individual Mandate
« Reply #103 on: June 28, 2012, 12:45:14 PM »
180 is a liar and con man - it leaves to question as to why he worships obama like he does.   Fellow travelers engaged in deception and lies. 

If I actually read all of his posts, I could probably highlight lies and embellishments every day.   ::)

MCWAY

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19262
  • Getbig!
Re: Supreme Court Upholds Individual Mandate
« Reply #104 on: June 28, 2012, 12:45:26 PM »
what I see is that you're really paranoid

If this is something that worries you then I guess that's a good thing

I hope it keep you up at night

btw - do all people who don't pay taxes go to jail, especially when the tax amount is very small?

The then-Speaker of the House STATED that it's was fair to throw people in jail, if they don't buy healthcare. That's not paranoia; that's FACT, which I just posted and you just dismissed simply because she said it three years ago.

As for the tax being small, SO WHAT!! Cancer starts off small as well.

In four years, people will get fined 2.5% of their income or nearly $2,100 per family. And, when taxes aren't paid, they gather this thing called INTEREST!!


Yes. Today's decision means that the individual mandate -- which requires nearly all Americans to buy health insurance by 2014 or face a penalty -- remains in place. If you don't purchase health care by 2014, the penalty will be as follows: $285 per family or 1% of income; By 2016, $2,085 per family or 2.5% of income.

http://www.hlntv.com/article/2012/06/28/what-supreme-court-health-care-law-decision-means-you

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63977
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Supreme Court Upholds Individual Mandate
« Reply #105 on: June 28, 2012, 12:46:11 PM »
I actually think Roberts gave Republicans a gift.  By upholding this as a tax, it galvanizes the Tea Party and Republicans, highlights the Administration's dishonesty about whether this was a tax, and gives Romney a key talking point for the rest of the campaign. 

I think it gets repealed in the House and Reid probably keeps it from getting to a vote in the Senate.   

Hugo Chavez

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 31865
Re: Supreme Court Upholds Individual Mandate
« Reply #106 on: June 28, 2012, 12:50:16 PM »
As much as I dislike Mitt Romney. He is our only chance of getting rid of this Obama-nation now. He claims that if elected he will exempt everybody from the requirements by granting a universal waiver.
that will happen... lol... no way he keeps that promise.

MCWAY

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19262
  • Getbig!
Re: Supreme Court Upholds Individual Mandate
« Reply #107 on: June 28, 2012, 12:57:16 PM »
I actually think Roberts gave Republicans a gift.  By upholding this as a tax, it galvanizes the Tea Party and Republicans, highlights the Administration's dishonesty about whether this was a tax, and gives Romney a key talking point for the rest of the campaign. 

I think it gets repealed in the House and Reid probably keeps it from getting to a vote in the Senate.   


That, in turn, puts the Dems on the hot seat in their races.

It reminds me of this article that I just read.

My Supreme Court-Health Care Prediction

by Michael Tomasky



This is easy. I take the darkest and most cynical possible view of the conservative majority; I believe, as I've written, that they are politicians in robes (with the partial exception of Kennedy); as such, I believe that they will behave here like politicians, and they will render the decision that will inflict the maximum possible political damage on Obama and the Democrats.

That means overturning the mandate 5-4. But it means doing so narrowly, carefully, almost regretfully. In other words, they want more than anything else not to rile up liberals. Tossing the whole thing would do that. Tossing the Medicaid expansion would kinda do that. Tossing guaranteed issue would kinda do it too, and would even have reach into independents and Republicans, since guaranteed issue is so popular.

They'll want to minimize backlash, in other words--both backlash against them as an institution and electoral backlash that might help Obama and the D's. So they'll limit their overturning to the mandate. And as I say, the majority opinion will say things like gee, we are deeply sympathetic to the problems inherent in the health-care system, but regretfully, we simply can't endorse this method under our reading of the Constitution.

That way, Obama is screwed (yes--the D's and even maybe the media will try to paint that as a partial win for the White House, but it won't be in my view). And yet the majority also seems reasonable. That's the needle I predict they're going to thread. What about the law, you say? Fiddle dee dee. This is politics, pure and simple.

If there's an off chance for a more positive ruling, it's this, which struck me after I read the Arizona opinion. With regard to the "show your papers" aspect of that law that the Court upheld, it did so by saying in essence, look, we're not endorsing this exactly, and we're not NOT endorsing it; we're just saying that it has to be put into practice, and we'll see how it's actually being implemented before we can determine its validity.

That made me think, maybe they can contrive to do something similar on the mandate. We're skeptical of it. We presume against it. But until it's implemented and put into practice, we can't really say whether it's coercion or not. We have to see how it works for a couple of years before we can decide that.

I have no idea about the law behind that, but obviously these guys can say whatever they want and find the case law to back it up. That's part of the beauty of being the Supreme Court.

That's my dim hope. But my expectation is as I wrote. It's a political court and it will render a political decision, but one disguised as Solomonic and equal to the gravity of the moment. Yours?


http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/06/27/my-supreme-court-health-care-prediction.html?utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&utm_campaign=cheatsheet_morning&cid=newsletter%3Bemail%3Bcheatsheet_morning&utm_term=Cheat%20Sheet

Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41012
  • one dwells in nirvana
Re: Supreme Court Upholds Individual Mandate
« Reply #108 on: June 28, 2012, 01:00:03 PM »
The then-Speaker of the House STATED that it's was fair to throw people in jail, if they don't buy healthcare. That's not paranoia; that's FACT, which I just posted and you just dismissed simply because she said it three years ago.

As for the tax being small, SO WHAT!! Cancer starts off small as well.

In four years, people will get fined 2.5% of their income or nearly $700. And, when taxes aren't paid, they gather this thing called INTEREST!!

and is there any provision if the law for that and what are the terms

this was gone over and fact checked and proven wrong repeatedly at the time the bill was passed


Grape Ape

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22459
  • SC è un asino
Re: Supreme Court Upholds Individual Mandate
« Reply #109 on: June 28, 2012, 01:07:16 PM »
If I actually read all of his posts, I could probably highlight lies and embellishments every day.   ::)

It's more lack of knowledge than lies.
Y

MCWAY

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19262
  • Getbig!
Re: Supreme Court Upholds Individual Mandate
« Reply #110 on: June 28, 2012, 01:09:00 PM »
and is there any provision if the law for that and what are the terms

this was gone over and fact checked and proven wrong repeatedly at the time the bill was passed



I just posted that in my edit of my previous post:

Yes. Today's decision means that the individual mandate -- which requires nearly all Americans to buy health insurance by 2014 or face a penalty -- remains in place. If you don't purchase health care by 2014, the penalty will be as follows: $285 per family or 1% of income; By 2016, $2,085 per family or 2.5% of income.

http://www.hlntv.com/article/2012/06/28/what-supreme-court-health-care-law-decision-means-you

Nearly $2100 per family in 2016, which is a hike of nearly NINEFOLD, from the penalty in 2014.

Obama said premiums wouldn't go up....THAT was BS!!

He said you could keep your plan, if you like it.....THAT was BS!!!

The middle class wouldn't see their taxes go up "one dime"....THAT was BS!!!

And, please explain why all those Dems (including Pelosi) were asking for waivers from this GARBAGE, if this plan was so great.

Obama lied his backside off; so did the Dems, to pass this garbage.

He just passed the LARGEST tax hike ON THE MIDDLE CLASS, in history, something about which conservatives WARNED for over two years.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39900
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Supreme Court Upholds Individual Mandate
« Reply #111 on: June 28, 2012, 01:10:15 PM »

I just posted that in my edit of my previous post:

Yes. Today's decision means that the individual mandate -- which requires nearly all Americans to buy health insurance by 2014 or face a penalty -- remains in place. If you don't purchase health care by 2014, the penalty will be as follows: $285 per family or 1% of income; By 2016, $2,085 per family or 2.5% of income.

http://www.hlntv.com/article/2012/06/28/what-supreme-court-health-care-law-decision-means-you

Nearly $2100 per family in 2016, which is a hike of nearly NINEFOLD, from the penalty in 2014.

Obama said premiums wouldn't go up....THAT was BS!!

He said you could keep your plan, if you like it.....THAT was BS!!!

The middle class wouldn't see their taxes go up "one dime"....THAT was BS!!!

And, please explain why all those Dems (including Pelosi) were asking for waivers from this GARBAGE, if this plan was so great.

Obama lied his backside off; so did the Dems, to pass this garbage.


Obamabots don't care if obama lies so long as his radical agenda of national socialism is advanced.   

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63977
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Supreme Court Upholds Individual Mandate
« Reply #112 on: June 28, 2012, 01:10:56 PM »
It's more lack of knowledge than lies.

Perhaps.  Although based on what I've heard for the past three years, I'm not giving them the benefit of the doubt.  

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39900
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Supreme Court Upholds Individual Mandate
« Reply #113 on: June 28, 2012, 01:24:25 PM »
Students Could Pay a Steep Price Under Obamacare


Ryan T. Anderson

June 27, 2012 at 7:45 pm




When it comes to religion and Obamacare, many people rightly focus on the Health and Human Services (HHS) “contraception” mandate that forces religious institutions to violate their consciences. Pro-lifers have also worried about the unprecedented moves Obamacare makes in federally subsidizing abortion. But there’s another concern that deserves attentionfor the good of religion and the health of our religious institutions.
 
Obamacare creates economic pressures for religious groups (and other groups) to cease providing health insurance. And this should worry anyone who cares about the health of our religious communities and civil society.
 
Two Catholic colleges—Ave Maria and Franciscan University—have already announced that they’ll be dropping student health insurance for the upcoming academic year. Much media attention has focused on the HHS mandate as the cause of their decision. But while the mandate would force these colleges to act contrary to their mission as Catholic educational institutions, the mandate wasn’t the immediate catalyst for their dropping their plans—after all, the government offered a one-year “safe harbor” waiting period to religious institutions not covered by the historically unprecedented, narrow exemption to figure out how they could then go about violating their consciences.
 
Something else about Obamacare forced the hand of these colleges: a provision requiring that this September, student health plans must provide benefits covering at least $500,000 of expenses, and that by 2014 they have no annual benefit limit. This is only one of the many Obamacare provisions that will drive up costs beyond what many institutions—especially religious ones—can afford.
 
Writing at Public Discourse, a biology professor at Franciscan, Daniel Kuebler, explains:
 

Because roughly 25 percent of student health-care plans have annual limits lower than half a million dollars, this means steep premium increases for these students over the next few years. Franciscan and Ave Maria have indicated that their premiums would go up at least 66 percent this year, and more than double next year. By 2014, when these plans must have no annual limit, the premiums will rise even higher.
 
Eliminating benefit caps results in increased premiums that will force many colleges to cease offering student plans—and force students to either forgo health insurance altogether or go into the government-subsidized exchanges. Kuebler notes that:
 

While Obamacare requires that all citizens have health insurance coverage by 2014 [the Individual Mandate], it is hardly a stretch to assume that some college students may decide that risking the small penalty is better than paying the new higher premiums. Indeed, taking that risk would be a financially sound move for the many students who will not experience serious health-care problems during college. And students who do get hospitalized without insurance will still receive care. Their costs will simply be passed on to the rest of us in the form of higher premiums. All they would have to do is pay the fine.
 
For students who want to maintain their insurance coverage but cannot afford it, government-subsidized plans—which will be paid for by taxpayers—will make up the difference. Thus the side effects of this regulation—one could hardly call them unintended—are that thousands of students will find themselves either without any health-care insurance at all, or dependent upon the government dole for it.
 
It’s hard to resist the conclusion that the end game here is to move America toward government-run health care. And this should be understood as a threat to religion and civil society just as much as the HHS mandate. It is good for religious organizations themselves and for America as a whole if many different groups within civil society—religious groups included—are able to provide health care and insurance. This not only contributes to a vibrant and competitive market, but also contributes distinctive types of health care—a healthy pluralism of care.
 
But Kuebler sees Obamacare as working to eliminate not only the competitive market, but the pluralism as well:
 

At the end of the day, the more people the Obamacare architects can corral into government-approved and -subsidized health care by regulating private plans into submission, the more control they will have over the health-care system. They can then further incentivize the dispensing of contraception, abortion, sterilization, and euthanasia—all of which can be at least short-term cost-savers—and at the same time use their own cold utilitarian calculus to determine who gets access to the health-care system. In a bloated unresponsive government-run system, these are the only ways to drive down costs. This is where we are heading once Obamacare fully flexes its muscle.
 
While the health-care system in America needs to be reformed, Franciscan and Ave Maria’s decision to drop student health-care plans offers just one example of how Obamacare is not the answer. Rather than reforming the system, it is deforming it. Step by step, regulation by regulation, the authors of Obamacare are bent upon creating a monolithic government-controlled system that will eventually take on a life of its own.
 
It’s just another reminder of why Obamacare needs to be repealed and replaced.


http://blog.heritage.org/2012/06/27/students-could-pay-a-steep-price-under-obamacare/?roi=echo3-12405332513-9005875-e7688e79e21b04fc922babf5b80bf033&utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Morning+Bell


Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39900
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Supreme Court Upholds Individual Mandate
« Reply #114 on: June 28, 2012, 01:27:20 PM »
 :(

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102387
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: Supreme Court Upholds Individual Mandate
« Reply #115 on: June 28, 2012, 01:36:04 PM »
I actually think Roberts gave Republicans a gift.

lmfao.

way to see the silver lining.

avxo

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5605
  • Iron Pumping University Math Professor
Re: Supreme Court Upholds Individual Mandate
« Reply #116 on: June 28, 2012, 01:36:23 PM »
I like some parts of Roberts' decision. This one kind of stands out for me (emphasis mine):

Quote
The individual mandate, however, does not regulate existing commercial activity. It instead compels individuals to become active in commerce by purchasing a product,on the ground that their failure to do so affects interstate commerce. Construing the Commerce Clause to permit Congress to regulate individuals precisely because they are doing nothing would open a new and potentially vast domain to congressional authority. Every day individuals do not do an infinite number of things. In some cases they decide not to do something; in others they simply fail to do it. Allowing Congress to justify federal regulation by pointing to the effect of inaction on commerce would bring countless decisions an individual could potentially make within the scope of federal regulation, and—under the Government’s theory—empower Congress to make those decisions for him.


Of course, he then turns out and allows Congress to, essentially, make those very decisions anyways just as long as they're presented as taxes. :-\

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39900
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Supreme Court Upholds Individual Mandate
« Reply #117 on: June 28, 2012, 01:37:01 PM »
lmfao.

way to see the silver lining.


Roberts just cemented his and W's legacy - 2 turds no different than obama 

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39900
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Supreme Court Upholds Individual Mandate
« Reply #118 on: June 28, 2012, 01:38:20 PM »
I like some parts of Roberts' decision. This one kind of stands out for me (emphasis mine):
 

Of course, he then turns out and allows Congress to, essentially, make those very decisions anyways just as long as they're presented as taxes. :-\

I think its even more offensive considering he knows that his action today did essentially that!

James

  • Guest
Re: Supreme Court Upholds Individual Mandate
« Reply #119 on: June 28, 2012, 01:45:09 PM »

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39900
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Supreme Court Upholds Individual Mandate
« Reply #120 on: June 28, 2012, 01:48:43 PM »
Get ready to turn over your Bank Account information.

http://libertyandpride.com/obamacare-gives-the-government-access-to-your-bank-account/


Pandering lying kneepadders like 180 could care less so long as the communist cult messiah gets his way.

He, like the others, are slaves to obama, willing ones at that.   

James

  • Guest
Re: Supreme Court Upholds Individual Mandate
« Reply #121 on: June 28, 2012, 01:53:18 PM »
Get ready:

Section 163 of the America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 would allow the government real-time access to a person's bank records - including direct access to bank accounts for electronic fund transfers


Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39900
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Supreme Court Upholds Individual Mandate
« Reply #122 on: June 28, 2012, 01:55:44 PM »
Get ready:

Section 163 of the America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 would allow the government
eal-time access to a person's bank records - including direct access to bank accounts for electronic fund transfers.[/b]



James - idiots like blackass, straw, 180, benny, andre - they love this stuff! 

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39900
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Supreme Court Upholds Individual Mandate
« Reply #123 on: June 28, 2012, 02:04:15 PM »
Did Roberts Give in to Obama's Bullying?

by Joel B. Pollak28 Jun 2012, 12:05

www.breitbart.com

 

As legal scholars study the Supreme Court's decision in the Obamacare case, more and more are concluding that Justice Anthony Kennedy's dissenting opinion, striking down the law in its entirety, was once the majority opinion--and that Chief Justice John Roberts switched his vote at a late stage. If so, it would appear that the Chief Justice may have succumbed to the bullying meted out by President Barack Obama, who attacked the Court in the aftermath of oral arguments in March, when Obamacare seemed headed for certain defeat.
 
As National Review's Ed Whelan, the Volokh Conspiracy's David Bernstein, and others are pointing out, the dissent refers to another opinion as "the dissent" and uses the pronoun "we," as if speaking for the Court, as majority opinions typically do. In addition, the dissent focuses on the government's arguments, rather than tackling the majority head-on. That suggests that a switch--most likely by the Chief Justice himself--may have come very late in the game, too late to offer more than the most cursory revisions of the opinions in the case.
 
The fact that the Chief Justice's reasoning is so flimsy is yet another piece of evidence that he may have made a late switch--and under pressure. Congress did not intend the individual mandate to be a tax--neither in the text of the legislation, nor in its public deliberations inside and outside the Capitol. (If it had chosen to go that route, the left might have put forward a far stronger argument for universal government-run health care.) It is correct that Chief Justice Roberts has tended to defer to Congress, as conservatives do--but while this opinion has the form of deference, in substance it is the opposite of deferential, rewriting Obamacare by judicial fiat.
 
One final point is worth noting: that President Obama was enthusiastically joined in his attacks on the Court by the mainstream media, not just after oral arguments but right up to the eve of the decision. Roger Simon of Politico penned one of the most notorious attacks, but he was not alone--and if Anthony Weiner had not removed himself from the scene, we would have seen Democrats carry out their strategy of trashing the Court as a "corporate dominated arm of the Republican party." The truth may, in fact be that the Court is dominated easily--not by corporate interests, but by Obama's imperial presidency and an intolerant mainstream media.
 
If Chief Justice Roberts thought he was preserving public trust in the Supreme Court today, he will quickly learn he has done the opposite--not least because Democrats define bipartisanship as complete capitulation. Liberals--still smarting over Bush v. Gore--and conservatives now both have reason to distrust the court and its motives. If that "bipartisanship" is the legacy of the Chief Justice's apparent switch, it is a bitter bequest.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/06/28/Did-Roberts-Give-in-to-Obama-Bullying


Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39900
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Supreme Court Upholds Individual Mandate
« Reply #124 on: June 28, 2012, 02:08:58 PM »
SCOTUS Tortures Constitution: PPACA

   
http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=207908




Now I've seen it all.

The USSC upheld Obamacare by, basically, twisting the Constitution into a pretzel, crapping on it, whizzing on that and then eating it.

Finding first that the Commerce Clause bars the government from compelling one to enter into commerce, the analysis then turned to whether there was any way to save the constitutionality of the act.

The justices found one.

They re-interpreted the penalty clause as a tax.

And of course, Congress can levy taxes.

That's the path taken by this tortured process -- a path that could only be dreamed up if someone had already determined the outcome they sought instead of being an independent jurist.

The real surprise, however, is that Chief Justice Roberts, believed to be a strict constructionist on the court, managed to not only agree with this piece of tortured logic he found and constructed it as the opinion is his!

So much for judicial restraint and strict construction!

You really ought to read the dissent that starts on page 127 of the opinion.  Justice Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy and Alito eviscertate the majority, saying in part:


Here, however, Congress has impressed into servicethird parties, healthy individuals who could be but are not customers of the relevant industry, to offset the undesirable consequences of the regulation. Congress’ desire to force these individuals to purchase insurance is motivatedby the fact that they are further removed from the marketthan unhealthy individuals with pre-existing conditions, because they are less likely to need extensive care in the near future. If Congress can reach out and command even those furthest removed from an interstate market to participate in the market, then the Commerce Clause becomes a font of unlimited power, or in Hamilton’s words, "the hideous monster whose devouring jaws . . . spare neither sex nor age, nor high nor low, nor sacred nor profane." The Federalist No. 33, p. 202 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961).

What little was left of The Constitution died today, June 28th, 2012.

And incidentally, the math on federal health spending coupled with this decision means that by the time a 55 year old man reaches 85 (his life expectancy, roughly) the Federal government will be attempting to spend roughly $15 trillion a year on health care.

(No it won't, no we won't get that far, and the detonation of our government on the fiscal side is now assured -- or your health care will be sacrificed.  This is mathematics, not politics.)