Oh come now.  I know it might effect you personally,

but there is no doubt, that like citizens united it's a

"I don't think it's a good idea, but leagally it's sound."

If you want to argue that the supreme court should consider the effects of there actions and not just the constitution that's one thing....

but to call them crooks because they made a pure obvious constiutional call... I'd say that's the EXACT opposite of being a crook.

I'm unemployed because of a system that is determined to screw over recent college graduates six ways from sunday. No minimum-wage job will hire me and all the experienced-unemployed are taking all the entry-level jobs, so me and what's probably my thyroid cancer will soon be a public burden on everyone as my uninsured, unemployable ass sucks money in with no-one paying out anything

No.

Stretching the truth for a good cause still amounts to a net positive. Another acceptable practice is making fair statistics that counter your policies into lies, just as long as the right people are doing it for the right ends.

Deontology, bitches.

There's huge precedent of government involvement in health care and how health insurance, despite not being tradable over state lines, is a huge interstate issue. This one's commerce clause, plain and simple, and it's judicial activism from social darwinists who think that the constitution somehow enumerates property rights that never really existed in the first place to strike this law down. Not that Roberts and that mouth-breathing warlock Scalia care, they're rich, so what matters how the peons suffer for the social darwinist cause?

this problem with healthcare is that there are people who can't afford it and healthcare doesn't cover enough coverage, if you decide not to have healthcare then you would have a debt to pay when going to the er, i went to the er without insurance, but i had to do is make monthly payments to the hospital. which was cheaper than even having insurance, why not have the healthcare give us at least some real coverage if they are going to force it down out throats, and the doctors are scamming out the insurance with outrages charges making it hard for insurances companies, with obamacare employers are force to charge even more for health benefits without giving out more coverage, leaving people stuck in medical debt,

There is obviously a problem with the healthcare system but obamacare is not the answer and it's unconstitutional, call me crazy but i don't want to waste my money on health insurance if it's not going to prevent me from oweing medical bills, kinda defeats the purpose

Dude, we've been over this before... and as I remember... it went from you argueing that I was using a slippery slope arguement to using a slippery slope arguement as to why it wouldn't be abused.  After you never responded to Badgenome i'd just had figured you realized you were wrong and had no arguement against it.

There is no gurantee people will use healthcare services, therefore it is unconsitutional  to mandate insurance.

It's that simple.

Unlike car insurance, where car insurance is specifically tied to driving a car which is a priveledge.(and also done by on a a state.  Which isn't bount like the federal government.  Actually that's likely why it is done on the state level.  The Fed couldn't do it.)

Unless your arguement is... people have to pay money for the right to live.

To say this ruling is constituional is to say there is no right to life... or really, anything.

As i said, it's a clear matter of interstate importance, the health-care industry, and in order to regulate it (at least as the system exists. I'm only expending this much energy defending this half-assed measure because of what i said before, that this is the best we're likely to get for now) they *need* to make it mandatory. There is no other market where forcing people to buy more is the only way to drive prices down in the aggregate, so there's no slippery slope here, except perhaps in expanded insurance-purchasing mandates, but nothing so ludicrous as those Enemies Of The People up on the bench suggested, about being forced to buy this or that consumer good. It's a simple matter of something that needs to be done in order to facilitate an essential part of commerce.

Sometimes I can't tell if you're really a leftist or a parody of one.

Except thats not an arguement for why they can do it.

That's an arguement for why they SHOULD have the power to do that.

Except, they don't have that power.'

Additionally, even if that was an arguement.  That arguement is false.

The government could decide to pass a law that created a government healthcare plan that covered everybody.... paid for by the government.

It'd have the same effect.

Goverment doesn't want to do it.  They however could.

And unlike the ACA, that would be constituional. (and would work better...)

Or do you think that single payer health insurance wouldn't be cheaper, or do you think it's not constitutional?