Shared publicly  - 
Healthcare access is a basic right. This is good news, but we still have a lot of work to do to get millions healthcare access.
In a dramatic victory for President Barack Obama, the Supreme Court upheld the 2010 health care law Thursday, preserving Obama’s landmark legislative achievement. The majority opinion was written by C...
Michael Westermann's profile photoJeffrey Geiger's profile photoTakashi Okimoto's profile photoOdin Townley's profile photo
Only problem with giving everyone "free" healthcare, is that someone has to pay for it. Wait until everyone's taxes go up. It isn't going to be just the rich. I am not, and i am paying for more. Why should i pay for yours, when i am struggling to pay mine
I could be wrong, but I think this decision surprised most people...even those who supported it. Thanks for posting +Gavin Newsom :-)
Don't worry soon we will have the Cable Subscription Mandate where you have to own a subscription to a Cable provider.
s.bradford well it is quite simple their is Important information that goes out over cable like an Emergency alert could go out as well as the news which will give you what the Government wants you to hear. So they can now force you per the Individual Mandate to buy a Cable Subscription and there is nothing you can do about it.
+Darren Cahoon , if it is so great, then why did your previous prime minister go to Miami to have heart surgery? Also how much do you pay in taxes? And how long do you have to wait for a surgery?
+s.bradford colson it has already. In two years my premiums went from $650/mo to $1300/mo. I have rheumatoid arthritis, so i need insurance.
No, free expression is a basic right.  Heath care is a statute provision.
I'm sorry, but no, access to healthcare is NOT a basic human right. A basic human right is being able to choose what you buy and what you do not. Freedom. Ability to choose. Those basic human rights were taken with this ruling.  
I know that everyone won't agree with me, but I personally think that the Supreme Court has lost its mind. To take something that is broke (our health care system), and make it harder on EVERYONE seems insane. So people that can't afford insurance are going to be penalized if they don't carry it AND there will be more federal programs to assist those who can't afford it AND people that can barely afford it are going to see increases because we have to pay for those programs AND they're calling it a tax? And YES, I understand that people need affordable options and NO, I don't want anyone going without health care, but if I'm missing something and someone understands this better than I do, please explain.
+s.bradford colson you should realize that the Supreme Court ruling allows the Government to force people to buy what they want you to as long as they attach the punishment to a tax increase. So they can absolutely make you or anyone else buy an cable subscription even though it doesn't harm you in the fact that I don't have one and refuse to have one. But Congress could mandate it now that I have one and if I still refuse they can increase my taxes whatever they want and they are in the clear. They could also mandate that you have to buy one fruit or vegetable every time you go to the Super market. If you don't they just have to Fine you through the IRS
Healthcare is a service and not a "basic right". It's amazing how "free healthcare" is going to cost everyone. Liberals, please stop messing up the greatest country in the world, please.
+Brenda Pennington, the fact that it is a terrible idea of a law cannot be considered by the Supreme Court; they only consider whether Congress has the power under the Constitution to do so.
I think it is time we vote out everyone who passed this law and just expanded Government that includes Obama who did just raise taxes on the Middle Class through this bill. The Supreme Court just ruled that it is a new tax he just put into effect.
The Supreme Court ruled that Congress cannot force people to buy things, but it can force them to give up money in taxes to pay for them.  They can't make you buy a cable subscription, but they can charge you extra taxes if you don't.
Which is giving you no real choice about it. It is the exact same thing as forcing you to purchase something you don't want. The Federal Government is now completely in control of how you spend your money. If you don't do what they want they will take the money away from you any way.
It's really similar, and an intrusion, and a shame.  But it's not identical and not illegal.
I'm fairly certain you don't understand what a right is.
Technically, they've ruled that you don't have to take the product but you do have to pay for it.
+David Beers are you referring to health care as a right? The only rights we have now is to listen to Daddy Obama. Why does government need to tell us what to do? How do they think that they are better at making decisions than i am. Just because i didn't want to go into politics, does that make me stupid?
If you're facing life-threatening injuries or illness, then by law a hospital must treat you. You cannot be turned away. That alone turns medical care into a "right". 
Michael Westermann people said with the Passing of the Patriot Act that it would lead to executions by the Government and guess what it did. Obama has ordered the Murder of US Citizens without trial something that those on the Left warned about when the Patriot Act passed. So it may seem unlikely now but give it some time. I mean just look at Citizens United it took a while for the effects of that ruling to fully come to pass.
+Brady Postma that isn't giving you a choice in the matter as before the mandate you could purchase insurance and pay the premium or you could say no thanks and take a risk but you wouldn't be fined for saying no thanks to insurance.
+Michael Westermann, except that hospitals can turn you away for triage and select other reasons.  And the "right" to receive health care is not the same as the "right" to pay for it regardless of your health or personal choice.
Thank goodness now we need to make them more Valuable for us uninsured
Really, they are completely relevant to this law. Is the Government not going to fine people who decide not to have insurance? Yeah they are. The Government has the power with this bill to make you purchase what ever it wants I mean even Kennedy I believe it was who stated that this could lead to the Government mandating you to purchase Broccoli I believe was the example brought forward. The Supreme Court has no ability to at this junction limit this new power.
+Michael Westermann I think you just love to have someone tell you how to spend your money. Us who like to spend our money how we want to spend it don't like the idea of Government forcing us to purchase something we don't want. The Principle of this law is the Government has control of how you spend your money. I mean it is a great way to boost the economy buy making sure people are forced to buy things.
+Jeffrey Geiger no one is telling you how to spend your money.  The ruling said that Congress has the right to tax its citizens.  If you choose to opt out of the healthcare insurance system, you are liable to pay a tax.  The rationale is that your failure to cover your own healthcare costs places a burden on everyone else who has chosen to purchase insurance.  That's because in 1986 Congress passed the EMTAL law which required hospitals to provide medical care to regardless of ability to pay.  The costs of providing uninsured care is passed on to everyone who has insurance.  This is no different from the recent motorcycle helmet law passed here in Michigan.  You are no longer required to wear a helmet, but if you choose not to wear a helmet you have to be able to produce proof that you have purchased an insurance rider which will cover your medical bills because of the increased risk of serious injury to the helmetless.  Those who choose to ride without a helmet and can't produce proof of insurance will have to pay a fine. 
G Mack
+Jeffrey Geiger, please give back your House buying mandate refund, to show us that you are truly serious about not having the Gov't forcing us into buying things. 

The gov't has been giving us a financial incentive to buy houses for years, and we were never once forced to buy broccoli. (I pay a higher tax because I do carry a mortgage, Mortgage Mandate?)
Wow +Jeffrey Geiger you've nailed it! That's exactly what I want! It's got nothing to do with my desire to see a health care system that provides access to services without causing bankruptcy, or seeing people who are shackled to jobs because they can't leave for fear of losing their insurance, or for with preventing insurance companies from cutting off services to their insured or preventing enrollments for pre-existing conditions, or for putting in place common sense mechanisms to pay for a system like this. Nope, none of that has anything to do with my support for this reform.

As long as we're summing up the opposition, allow me to render my opinion. People who argue your points are masking their "I've got mine, screw you" attitude behind a false cover of personal liberty and freedom. 

I think the absolute LAST thing someone who's injured or ill should have to worry about is whether they're going to lose every asset they have to pay for the healthcare they're about to receive. I think this law takes us in that direction. I think it's morally appropriate to expect citizens to pay into a system that must render services to them by law. I think the red herrings your side throws around are symptoms of greed that you'd never admit to.
G Mack I don't own a home. Also that would be more of a Subsidy than an actual tax. If they are saying here we will give you a tax credit for purchasing X they are incentivizing you to purchase something for the Tax Credit. It is just like when something has an $100 dollar instant rebate they are trying to convince you to buy today.
+Michael Westermann they aren't paying into the System they are going to be paying the Government which will use that money more than likely to bomb some other country into the ground. Also the Public Option would do all of that but congress didn't want that did they? Despite 70% of the people wanting it. Congress decided that a Mandate was better something that Obama said was wrong to do in 2008 but I doubt people remember that. 
Add a comment...