My Facebook Friends Are In Shock!

I'm right there with ya! And I'm probably ticking off all my "moderate" friends. Oh, well. Maybe they'll educate themselves and realize what a terrible decision this was for our country!
 
I don't think the moderates will be very happy with this ruling.
 
I'm Floored said:
I'm right there with ya! And I'm probably ticking off all my "moderate" friends. Oh, well. Maybe they'll educate themselves and realize what a terrible decision this was for our country!
Click to expand...

That's why I put it in quotations. Those friends tout themselves as moderate, but are really anything but. Most are employed by the government in some capacity.
 
I have seen many posts from my democratic friends stating things, "if you hate obamacare so much the alternative is to vote in Romney where he had it in his state? How do you justify that vote?"
 
ShoeDiva said:
I have seen many posts from my democratic friends stating things, "if you hate obamacare so much the alternative is to vote in Romney where he had it in his state? How do you justify that vote?"
Click to expand...
They have a point. My hope is that he honors "repeal and replace" and acknowledges the work of Dr. Coburn.
 
lotstodo said:
ShoeDiva said:
I have seen many posts from my democratic friends stating things, "if you hate obamacare so much the alternative is to vote in Romney where he had it in his state? How do you justify that vote?"
Click to expand...
They have a point. My hope is that he honors "repeal and replace" and acknowledges the work of Dr. Coburn.
Click to expand...
I know they do. My reason for no response. ;)
 
I know. I'm shocked and saddened. It's constitutional because it's a tax? ??? What is up with that? :( :( :(
 
I just saw one of my dear friends get attacked by a liberal leftist. She had lots of defenders, including me. :D
 
ShoeDiva said:
I have seen many posts from my democratic friends stating things, "if you hate obamacare so much the alternative is to vote in Romney where he had it in his state? How do you justify that vote?"
Click to expand...

I can respond to that. Right now, the federal laws prohibit individuals and companies from purchasing health insurance across state lines. This is one reason why health insurance is too expensive for so many people who go without it and many families that have it are stretching their budget to continue paying it. Because we are prohibited by the federal government the ability to purchase insurance across state lines, health care should be a state's rights issue and not something the feds should be forcing states to do. The individual mandate in MA was a decision by an individual state and had no affect on the other states.

What the federal government should do is create more competition by opening state lines so we as individuals and private industry have more options available on who to purchase from. The more competition we have for a product or service, the lower those companies reduce their prices to get our business. We do it for car insurance; why not for health insurance as well?
 
I looked at the discussion on this subject at the other site. It appears the majority are angry over the decision by the SCOTUS. A few say this will be the first time they vote Republican.
 
Foxmeister said:
I looked at the discussion on this subject at the other site. It appears the majority are angry over the decision by the SCOTUS. A few say this will be the first time they vote Republican.
Click to expand...

THAT's the kind of backlash I'm hoping for.
 
Foxmeister said:
I looked at the discussion on this subject at the other site. It appears the majority are angry over the decision by the SCOTUS. A few say this will be the first time they vote Republican.
Click to expand...

I was not going there - just too irritating to watch the entitlement mentality, and Kool Aid sipping idiots.
 
Foxmeister said:
I looked at the discussion on this subject at the other site. It appears the majority are angry over the decision by the SCOTUS. A few say this will be the first time they vote Republican.
Click to expand...

Well...a ray of light perhaps...
 
ShoeDiva said:
I have seen many posts from my democratic friends stating things, "if you hate obamacare so much the alternative is to vote in Romney where he had it in his state? How do you justify that vote?"
Click to expand...

That's because Romney allowed the people to VOTE for what they wanted and "THE PEOPLE" of that state wanted his health care plan. It was not forced on them.
 
I have to say that even my Democrat boss is shocked that it made it through the SCOTUS.
 
ShoeDiva said:
I have seen many posts from my democratic friends stating things, "if you hate obamacare so much the alternative is to vote in Romney where he had it in his state? How do you justify that vote?"
Click to expand...
It is my understanding that Mitt did not really want the healthcare plan in Mass. but the people did. He gave them what they wanted. He worked for the people. I hope he will do the same when he is President. "We The People" should still mean something.
 
Genevieve said:
I know. I'm shocked and saddened. It's constitutional because it's a tax? ??? What is up with that? :( :( :(
Click to expand...
That's the crux of the question right there. It is constitutional for the government to levy a tax for the purpose of transfer payments, like it or not. It is NOT constitutional for the government to mandate that a private citizen purchase a product from another private citizen, particularly if that product originates within the state of residence (all insurance companies are currently state licensed, not federally licensed).

The shock is that five justices bought into Obama's 180 claiming it is a tax instead of the "mandate" he sold the American people. He won on semantics. But now the "truth?" is known and the tax can be fought as such.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top