Will Only Suckers Buy ObamaCare Insurance?

Investor's Business Daily ^ | 2/19/2013 | John Merline

[catnipman]

“If we don’t get insurance we are fined a grand a year.”

Just make sure you always under withhold your tax payments such that you will always owe the government a bit at the end of each tax year instead of the other way around and they’ll have no way to collect any fine you might owe.

That’s the best way to do it anyway as it’s stupid to give the government an interest-free loan anyway.

[fr_freak]

Obamacare is not something you can "buy".

It is with you like your soul is with your physical body. There is no choice but to pay for it one way or another - by design.

Actually, from what I understand, people making under a certain amount of income per year are exempt from paying. So, one method of avoiding paying for Obamacare is to go Galt. That also has the advantage of starving the beast. Say hello to barter system, working under the table, and back market, baby! Soviet Union here we come!

[freedomfiter2]

The other four judges don’t even claim to be originalists and are left wing idiots. Roberts turned his back on everything he supposedly stood for the make that ruling. What was his payback? That vote sealed the fate of America. The idea of a limited government is dead and the nation will follow shortly.

[USFRIENDINVICTORIA]

If Roberts made his ruling on the basis of some political calculus; then I completely agree with you.

If, on the other hand, Roberts made his ruling on the basis of his interpretation of the law, and in particular, the Constitution, that's another matter. In that case, the ruling should be attacked on the basis of the law, rather than the political issues involved.

It seems to me (as nothing but an interested outsider) that the SCOTUS has become far too political -- in the worst sense of the word. It was supposed to be a body that interpreted Constitutional law in a disinterested (and particularly a non-partisan) fashion. Now, as you point out, four of the members are left-wing idiots -- and four others seem to be partisan right-wingers (although that makes them enlightened, rather than idiots, it's still a partisan political mindset). Roberts is the only one whose vote isn't easily predicted; because he appears to put the law above partisan politics. Anyhow, that's how things seem to this foreigner, based mainly on things I've read on FR.

[freedomfiter2]

There are few portions in the US Constitution more clear than the 10th Amendment. Roberts had to use an extremely twisted world view to reach the conclusion he came to.

[USFRIENDINVICTORIA]

You’d know more about that than me. A Supreme Court shouldn’t play politics. (The Supreme Court of Canada has it’s own set of problems — so, I’m not trying to suggest that only the SCOTUS has problems separating politics from the rule of law.)

[AZLiberty]

... Now, as you point out, four of the members are left-wing idiots -- and four others seem to be partisan right-wingers ...

The problem is that people -- apparently even you -- interpret belief in the Constitution as being partisan right-wing behavior.

To a first approximation, the Supreme Court currently consists of four Constitutionalists, four anti-Constitutionalists, and one who joined the second group last year.

[USFRIENDINVICTORIA]

“The problem is that people — apparently even you — interpret belief in the Constitution as being partisan right-wing behavior.”

Almost everyone on this board seems to agree that there are 4 left-wing partisans, who make their rulings on the basis of a partisan political calculus. Left wingers adore them.

There are four other justices, who reliably make rulings that right-wingers like. Perhaps, they are all strict constructionists, and make their rulings without any thought of the political issues. If so, why is it so easy to predict what their rulings are going to be, simply on the basis of the partisan divisions in the political realm?

Roberts stands apart, because his rulings aren’t easily predicted on the basis of a political analysis alone. That’s as it should be — constitutional law isn’t easy, otherwise they could just randomly select panels of 9 citizens to hear each case; like they do with juries in ordinary trials.

[USFRIENDINVICTORIA]

I've been reflecting on your comment, since my reply above and would like to run another possibility by you. First, let me remind you that I actually said "seem to be partisan right-wingers ...."

Adherents of "right wing" of U.S. politics are philosophically aligned with the principles embedded in the U.S. Constitution. Rabid left-wingers insist on the "living-document" doctrine, because they share little philosophical ground with the Constitution as actually written. Since they can't get the written Constitution they want through the prescribed amendment process; they cling to the "living document" doctrine, and count on like-minded Justices to don their magic glasses, and read what they want to see between the lines.

Therefore, a strict constructionist will naturally seem* to be philosophically aligned with the "right wing" -- but, that's not being partisan. Partisan politics are very different from pure political philosophy. The calculus of realpolitik muddies the political philosophy. The Democrats have cobbled together a coalition based on identity politics, and class warfare (amongst other things). Some Democrats are actually "liberals" (in the real sense of the word), others are Marxists, others are just thugs and shake-down artists. On the right, I give you RINOs.

* By "seem to be" I mean that a strict constructionist would set aside his or own personal political philosophy, and base his rulings entirely on the law, as written. Even if that Jurist were a Marxist, he would thus "seem" to be a right winger, simply because today's right wing is more in tune with the Constitution.

[AZLiberty]

Exactamundo. The left works to characterize the people-who-actually-believe-in-what-this-country-means as people who are at the crazy right end of the spectrum (”bitter clingers”). What used to be the American ideal and the American consensus is now portrayed as stupid and/or evil.

[AZLiberty]

But the fundamental, underlying problem is that, for the most part, the people who populate this country now are not the same kind of people who lived during Revolutionary times. Back then, and as recently as the middle of the 20th Century, kids grew up with the freedom to explore the world, to gain experiences and discipline that made them grown-up in their mid-teens, and to learn the consequences of disobeying natural law.

By now we've had a hundred years of public schooling. Now, even the teachers are stupid and every major institution in this country is broken. Politics, government, education, health care, and so on are more "dys-" than functional, sapping the country of the resources it needs to move forward. The military is joining the flow towards mediocrity.

We are now -- with few exceptions -- a nation of sheep. That provides a huge opportunity for people who claim to be our shepherd -- and an equal opportunity for a wolf.