Skip to content

Sixers center Spencer Hawes is not thrilled with today’s Supreme Court decision

Jun 28, 2012, 1:20 PM EDT

Spencer Hawes AP

If you fancy taking your political cues from a man who had this carved into the back of his head, then you’ll be happy with today’s developments. Even though he grew up in the bluest part of blue Washington state, Spencer Hawes is a diehard Republican: the 76ers’ center has a God Bless GW Bush bumper sticker on his car, and is an enthusiastic global warming denier. So when the Supreme Court’s decision on health care came down today, this series of tweets from Hawes should have been no surprise.

My favorite: Ronald Reagan is spinning in his grave. We might as well be Russia from 1983. #americancommunists.


More reaction from the sports world here.

  1. stlouis1baseball - Jun 28, 2012 at 3:27 PM

    I love Spencer Hawes. My new favorite player!

  2. parkcityute - Jun 28, 2012 at 3:49 PM

    Spencer! Can you be more clear? Socialism, communism? yep. It is all around us. My son arrived at his first day in the 1st grade. His teacher sent home a list of supplies needed: such as: hand wipes, liquid soap, facial tissue, paper towels, pencils, pens, erasers, note pads, spiral notebooks (wide lined) and about 20 other items. I did not readily note the entire page, just skimmed it and put it in my purse so I would get the items at the dollar store and discount store later that day. When I was in the store checking off the items, I read to te bottom of the list. There the teacher stated, “Do not write the name of your child on any item. These items will NOT be used just for your child, but for every child in the class…we know some children will not be able to purchase these items…” I went to the school and asked for the teacher and asked her at which socialist school did she receive her teaching credentials. She was offended. I then stated, the items I sent to school were for my child’s use. If there was a child without proper supplies, and truly his/her parents could not afford the supplies, then I would buy that child all needed supplies. That was my choice. I was willing to make that choice. The government run school was not making the choice for me. The teacher was astounded and then sent out another letter echoing what I had said. No child came to school without supplies. All children had their own colors, pencils, and paper. Neither the teacher nor I, nor any other interested parent or taxpayer, had to buy any student any supplies. We do not need socialism or communism.

    • porkcarrot - Jun 28, 2012 at 4:04 PM

      Hell yeah. Why the hell should we be teaching our children about sharing, or taking care of the less fortunate? If those other kids can’t afford it, someone else will gladly pay for it out of the kindness of their hearts. And if someone doesn’t come forward to pay for it, then they just don’t get to learn. Their parents shouldn’t be so poor and surely lazy.

      AND, your analogy works perfectly in regards to health care too. My recluse neighbor got cancer and couldn’t afford the treatment. Letting the government help her would be socialist, so we couldn’t do that. It’s fine, someone more fortunate will probably help her. I’m not going to, because screw her, she wouldn’t have these problems if she wasn’t so poor and surely lazy.


      • texangirl - Jun 28, 2012 at 5:26 PM

        This has nothing to do with “not sharing”. It’s about the government telling YOU what YOU need and then telling YOU how YOU should distribute it. This is the same government who is giving billions to Egypt while our NYC school buildings are in shambles.

        What people don’t realize is that today everyone gets medical treatment, even people with no insurance. So your neighbor who has cancer would be treated with no insurance. I know people who have no insurance and are receiving cancer treatments and doing very well.

        • porkcarrot - Jun 28, 2012 at 5:36 PM

          And who do you think is paying for those people with no insurance? YOU and I are. YOU and I are paying the taxes for it. YOU and I are paying the higher premiums for it. YOU and I are being forced to give our money to people we don’t even know.

          So basically what you are against people paying for their own health insurance, you would rather we pay for it. I’m really confused.

          • texangirl - Jun 28, 2012 at 9:20 PM

            Yes I know we are paying for people with no insurance and now on top of that we will now pay an extra tax because of Obamacare.

            So many people around the world think that the poor in the US are thrown in a dark room and left to die. Not true. Every poor person in the US receive health care today. I don’t have a problem with it as long as its done correctly. Wasteful spending is what bothers me. Sadly our tax dollars are not being used wisely.

            Because of the ruling today the people who pay will have to pay even more. If you think our premiums are high now, just wait. It’s going to get worse.

            • tigersgeaux - Jun 28, 2012 at 9:29 PM

              Way to go girl! You voiced what I feel. So many people in Canada, living in the land of socialized medicine are coming to the U.S. for care since physicians and specialists there close their doors half way through the year or so because they have reached their limit. Elderly patients in Britain (once called “Great”) under socialized government one payer system medicine are having their hip operations not “approved” the government adjudicator because they do not have much life expectancy left so it is not “cost effective.” In Louisiana, we have charity hospitals for the indigent, and if anyone goes to any hospital (at least any hospital I know of) and needs care, they receive it. It the burden that illegal aliens are placing on southern California hospitals and social services that is bankrupting them and the state of California, not the U.S. citizens.

              I fear exactly what you have posted…it’s going to get worse. What are we going to do?

            • ccshocktalk - Jun 29, 2012 at 7:37 AM

              First of all the government mandates you have to have car insurance, and nobody freaks out. My monthly car insurance is a hell of a lot more than my health insurance. Car insurance premium and healthcare premium are about the same for me.

              Education is mandatory and paid for by the citizens. You have to stay in school till you are 16 years of age. Now that may mean third grade for some places like Texas but in the educated part of the country that generally means you are at least in 10th grade. Again, mandatory, public funded by YOUR tax dollars.

              Mandatory health insurance is no different then mandatory car insurance.

              Don’t forget if this is about spend spend spend, remember the republicans were in control when the housing market collapsed, started two wars, bank system failed, no child left behind was created to make every dumb kid get forced through and the patriot act took out the constitution. And no republicans had a problem with any of that. Nor do they have a problem with major tax breaks for the richest people in the country and for all the big businesses who take their jobs and money overseas. No republican has a problem with that, but when we try and do something that benefits the people in America they freak out.

              Surprise surprise.

              Americans are Americans own worst enemy. They kill the middle class with taxes, create tax breaks for the wealthy, big businesses then ship their jobs overseas. And then they decide we shouldn’t help those who need medical attention….yeah, those are just the kind of American ideals the founding fathers created America on.

              Silly Americans, healthcare, education, and a good life is for the wealthy not the middle class or poor people.

              • texangirl - Jun 29, 2012 at 9:27 AM

                Nobody freaks out because the government does not make everyone pay for car insurance. The government will make everyone pay for health insurance. There is a difference.

              • allmyteamsareterrible - Jun 29, 2012 at 9:46 AM

                You have to have car insurance because you drive your care on government owned roads, therefore they have every right to tell you what you must have to use their roads. If you do not want car insurance that’s fine, you just can’t drive your car. The government is not giving me an option, they are telling me what I have to do. Your analogy is idiotic and I am sick and tired of liberals using it. It makes no sense and does not correlate even remotely to the issue of insurance. Please be more intelligent.

              • tigersgeaux - Jun 29, 2012 at 10:31 AM

                My husband, my brothers, my father, and myself, as well as most of my friends opposed the Barney rule intimidating banks into loaning out loans to those who would not qualify or face government investigations. We also were not for the wars, but we wholeheartedly support the young men and women who serve as American heroes. We also opposed the Patriot Act under Bush and its expansion under Obama. We are libertarians, not republicans, but you obviously are a leftist liberal Democrat. Quite stereotyping people and showing your bigotry.

              • stlouis1baseball - Jun 29, 2012 at 10:40 AM

                CC: I recommend you do your homework. Car Insuarance is NOT a federal mandate. It is a STATE MANDATE. That is the difference. The Federal Government (with the passing of Obamacare) will now force us to purchase a product. That is in direct violation of the constitution. Again…that is the difference. Your scenario is apples-to-oranges.
                Housing Market: Again…you are wrong. It was the Clinton Administration who was responsible as a result of the programs that were implemented under their watch. The republicans just happened to be in control when the bubble burst (as a result of the Clinton Administrations housing policy). I remember President Clinton actually saying the words “new found pride in home ownership” when asked how people who don’t currently pay their credit card bills, utilities, etc… are going to suddenly become responsible citizens with regards to their mortgage payments. No Child Left Behind: Hillary Clinton.
                DO YOUR HOMEWORK. Ignorance is NOT bliss.

              • chuckleberry1974 - Jul 1, 2012 at 12:16 AM

                St Louis, it’s a State issue because that’s how cars are registered, with the State.
                The commerce clause is NOT violated in this case, as I think you actually know. No one is being forced to buy anything, and particularly not a particular brand or exact product.
                There is court decision after court decision demonstrating use of the commerce clause for price regulation and market balance, which is one of the chief objectives in the Affordable Care Act. With insurance premiums paid by more people, and fewer tax dollars used to cover uninsured people’s bills, coupled with insurance marketplaces and smarter billing practices and fraud detection, premiums will go down and care will improve.

      • stlouis1baseball - Jun 29, 2012 at 10:30 AM

        Pork…you truly are clueless.

    • grudenthediva - Jun 29, 2012 at 12:48 AM

      “The government run school was not making the choice for me”

      Then take the little prince out of the “government” school, keep him off the government funded roads, off the transport, away from the funded police and firemen, out of the parks…you get my drift.

      I bet you’re one of those types that blames the school, the teachers and the entire school board when Little Mister gets in trouble. Personal accountability and responsibility until it comes back at you!!! I got mine!!! Where’s my SS check?!! Yee haw!!

      • texangirl - Jun 29, 2012 at 9:32 AM

        Public school was very different decades ago. It was better back then. Today too much government is involved. I believe this is the point the above poster was trying to make.

        • ccshocktalk - Jun 29, 2012 at 9:47 AM

          You would think too much government is involved, especially since it was the Republican party that got the government all the way into the schools. No child left behind ring a bell?

          Public schools are funded by the people, and they also get kickbacks from the state government that gets it from the federal government.

          If you don’t want to the government involved you might want to park your car so you don’t use roads funded by the government, or call 911 because they’re funded by the government as well.

          You are FORCED to pay those taxes, it isn’t privatized. If you want everything to be privatized have at it. Go pay for private police officers, firefighters, send your kids to a private school if you don’t like them sharing. I wen to a private school and i still learned to share.

          As far as being forced to pony up the money for healthcare for other people, you’re forced to pony up the money for other kids to go to school not just your own. And when you don’t have kids you still pay school district taxes whether or not you have children. So what is the difference between ponying up for other peoples kids to go to school or ponying up for someone else to have some form of health insurance.

          And as far as your statement about people getting healthcare without insurance, yeah, you know who is going to get the bill for that down the road? The taxpayers, so what’s the big deal?

          • texangirl - Jun 29, 2012 at 3:30 PM

            Oh my goodness people. I am not against paying taxes. What I don’t like is when the government tells me to turn right when all I want to do is to drive straight ahead. Understand? It’s a very simple logic.

            • chuckleberry1974 - Jul 1, 2012 at 12:18 AM

              When going straight ahead impacts society and turning right is for the greater good, maybe independence and self-sufficiency aren’t all they’re cracked up to be.

  3. parkcityute - Jun 29, 2012 at 8:24 AM

    You are obviously an idiot who was edumacated in the government school system and did not grow beyond it. Leftist idiots spout the same talking points you have plagiarized. Health care insurance is not like auto insurance. No one is required to drive a car. You can take public conveyance or ride a bicycle or take a taxi and many other methods of travel. There is no requirement to own a car. While living in NYC, I did not own a car, and few people did. None of us were REQUIRED BY THE GOVERNMENT TO PURCHASE AUTO INSURANCE. Also, in every state there is a provision not to purchase auto insurance even if you own a motor vehicle. One can choose to self-insure, as some in many states do. YOU have no choice but to be alive. If you are alive, you will be forced to purchase something, just by virtue of being alive. This is the first time that being alive came with the government requirement of purchasing something from a private company. (several U.S. Supreme Court justices have already relayed this in their opinions).

    Also, with the amount of property taxes (school board), sales taxes (local government and state), and federal taxes my family and I already pay, there is nothing we get from the government which even approaches 10% of what we pay. We raise our children and none are in trouble and two are already contributing to society in service and taxes. We have never received a SS check and probably never will, but have contributed hugely into the system. If we had the money we contributed we would have a nice size retirement, if we had invested in just about any good business. Yee Haw you bigot!

    • allmyteamsareterrible - Jun 29, 2012 at 9:50 AM

      Thank you. I am so sick and tired of liberals using the analogy of car insurance. It is absolutely ridiculous, and the fact that it is constantly used to defend Obamacare just shows what a lost cause it is.

      No one is forcing you to buy car insurance. You do not get a fine if you do not own a car or own insurance. You get a fine when you drive your car on government funded roads without insurance because it’s against the law. You can feel free to not have car insurance…you just can not legally drive your car.

      Let me repeat: there is no correlation between the car insurance analogy and the current dumpster fire that is Obamacare. Zero. None. Nadda. Ocho. Stop using it, it makes you look like an idiot.

    • ccshocktalk - Jun 29, 2012 at 10:35 AM

      Yee Haw biggot?

      Yeah you can take a bike and you can walk, and you can do whatever else you want, but if you’re going to hop into a car and use anything that the government provides IE ROADS then you HAVE TO HAVE INSURANCE TO BE ON THAT ROAD.

      If you want to use a hospital that receives any kind of GOVERNMENT money then you should HAVE TO HAVE INSURANCE.

      Why is that so hard to understand? If you want to use 911 and all the other government provided services then you’ll HAVE TO PAY. If you don’t like it get the hell out of the country. Go live in a privatized country or a anarchist state…clearly you don’t understand how a government runs, operates or is funded.

      • allmyteamsareterrible - Jun 29, 2012 at 10:46 AM

        How am I a bigot you uneducated schmuck? What did I say that makes me a bigot? Is this another one of those “you disagree with the black president so you are racist” comments?

        I would comment on the rest of your post but I didn’t read it because you are obviously lacking the mental capacity to have a reasonable debate.

        • ccshocktalk - Jun 29, 2012 at 11:16 AM

          and look above, i wasn’t referring to you allmyteam as the biggot, a few posts up some doucher pulled the bigot card so i was merely mocking them.

      • stlouis1baseball - Jun 29, 2012 at 10:53 AM

        CC: Again…do your homework. The entire isssue is the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT is requiring us to purchase a product. Again…FEDERAL. Huge difference between a FEDERALLY MANDATED requirement as opposed to a STATE MANDATED requirement.

        • ccshocktalk - Jun 29, 2012 at 11:15 AM

          Why does it matter if it’s the federal government or state government?

          You do know that your state belongs to the federal government, right? You do know that your state representatives report to the federal government, right? You do understand that you live in the United States of America, a group of states that fall under the federal guidelines laid out for us in the constitution, bill of rights, etc. etc. etc. and are governed by the President of the United States. Your state government reports to the federal government, so it really doesn’t matter if your state mandates it or the federal government mandates it.

          If the state mandated it, it would be because they are getting kickbacks from the federal government. Maybe you should spend a little more time researching laws, and where they come from. I know it may be hard stepping away from your keyboard, but you may want to go sit in a library for a little while and start doing some research.


      • heyblueyoustink - Jun 29, 2012 at 11:35 AM

        Two things my friend:

        Hospitals are owned by corporations, and run by boards. The reason they change hands so much is because it’s had to be profitable, even with government subsudies. Bottom line: you know those evil coporate types you hate, this whole thing makes *them* money! All at the cost of a little bit of freedom and liberty. Why don’t you ask someone making $10/hr where their going to get the money for the insurance, or for the fine, or *tax*, as they call it.

        Secondly: “If you don’t like it get the hell out of the country. Go live in a privatized country or a anarchist state…clearly you don’t understand how a government runs, operates or is funded.”

        No, because we’re Americans, and we don’t just give in to tyrrany, even if it comes from our own shores.

        • chuckleberry1974 - Jul 1, 2012 at 12:25 AM

          Tyranny? Little bit strong for this debate, Republican.

          Also, fact: the insurance industry is immensely profitable, and manipulates payments and accounting to avoid taxes and spends tons in lobbying to continue being one of the mnost profitable industries in the world.

          • alligatorsnapper - Jul 2, 2012 at 10:12 AM

            chuck: You have not even read the opinion of the SCOTUS, nor have you received balanced news on this matter. SCOTUS did NOT cite the Commerce Clause, which the ObamaTAX advocates arguing before them did. In fact, the majority held that the Commerce Clause could not be expanded to include such a transaction, and warned it could not be used to include such transactions in the future. SCOTUS cited the Constitutional right of Congress to tax anything, anyone, at any time except if it was protected by the Constitution (e.g. free speech). Since it is not Obamacare, but rather now Officiallly declared by SCOTUS, it is now ObamaTax, the largest tax increase in the history of the world. Obama is a liar. He argued and belittled those interviewers and others who told him it was a tax, even quoting from the dictionary to prove it. Nancy Pelosi said it was not a tax. Harry Reid said it was not a tax. Obama said it was not a tax. All lied. It is a tax. ObamaTax.

            • chuckleberry1974 - Nov 6, 2012 at 5:31 AM

              It’s not the largest tax increase in the history of the world. Of the 15 significant tax increases in American (not the world) it comes in 10th.

    • mgflolox - Jun 30, 2012 at 3:54 AM

      Yeah, Park, I’m sure Jesus will be real proud of you for taking that stand regarding your kid’s classroom.

      • alligatorsnapper - Jul 2, 2012 at 10:16 AM

        “Judge not lest you be judged” –Jesus

        I guess you don’t know Jesus. Jesus was not a socialist or communist. He did not even require others to obey Him, but left it up to their choice. When a statist government imposes its tax on you to require you to purchase a private product, that is not freedom, nor it is Constitutional.

        • mgflolox - Jul 2, 2012 at 5:43 PM

          You ever read the Gospels or The Book of Acts? Sounds like a pretty socialist group to me. Ever see ANYTHING connecting Jesus to government in any way? Maybe his stand on taxes, “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s….”. Seems to me He was a lot more concerned with mankind’s greed & selfishness than with socialism.

  4. ccshocktalk - Jun 29, 2012 at 11:12 AM

    stlouis1baseball – Jun 29, 2012 at 10:40 AM
    CC: I recommend you do your homework. Car Insuarance is NOT a federal mandate. It is a STATE MANDATE. That is the difference. The Federal Government (with the passing of Obamacare) will now force us to purchase a product. That is in direct violation of the constitution. Again…that is the difference. Your scenario is apples-to-oranges.
    Housing Market: Again…you are wrong. It was the Clinton Administration who was responsible as a result of the programs that were implemented under their watch. The republicans just happened to be in control when the bubble burst (as a result of the Clinton Administrations housing policy). I remember President Clinton actually saying the words “new found pride in home ownership” when asked how people who don’t currently pay their credit card bills, utilities, etc… are going to suddenly become responsible citizens with regards to their mortgage payments. No Child Left Behind: Hillary Clinton.
    DO YOUR HOMEWORK. Ignorance is NOT bliss.”

    First things first, the overwhelming majority of state laws are enforced by the federal government, and the federal government gives the state funding for enacting certain laws in their state. Laws such as the drinking age of 21. That is a state law, but the state gets kickbacks from the feds for enforcing the law they want. Same thing with car insurance.

    Second thing, go ahead and blame the clinton administration all you want, but in Bill Clinton’s second term, the budget was balanced and for the first time in God knows how long we were able to pay down some of our national debt. The president and his cabinet and banks can’t be blamed for peoples stupidity who got mortgages that fluctuated, who the hell would sign that? And then they kept borrowing and borrowing and borrowing and borrowing…what the hell did people think was going to happen? if you aren’t making enough money (approved for a loan or not) people should have had an IQ higher than a rock to know they’ll need to pay that back, and if you have a fluctuating interest rate, that interest rate DEFINITELY is NEVER going to go down. EVER. So those people are to blame for their own mess, not the banks, not the president, not the government. How about taking credit for all the borrowing? Where the hell is the sense of personal responsibility. You made the mistake of borrowing that damn much money, your rates are through the roof and it’s your fault for doing that.
    You’re right ignorance is not bliss, and our country is full of ignorant bastards who road on that glory train and look where we are sitting now. And it isn’t because the banks, or bill clinton. So get over it.

    “do your homework” here is my homework dip sh-t.

    “These reforms express my deep belief in our public schools and their mission to build the mind and character of every child, from every background, in every part of America.

    President George W. Bush
    January 2001″

    You may want to do yourself a favor and decide to have this discussion with someone who watches Faux News and agrees with all your ideas.

    • stlouis1baseball - Jun 29, 2012 at 11:33 AM

      CC: But that is where we differ. I actually enjoy a good debate. Some of my best friends fall under the warm and fuzzy crowd (i.e. the left).
      Read your Constitution. It specifically bars the Federal Government from requiring it’s Citizens to purchase a product. Pretty simple really.
      Say what you want…but we both know Clinton enacted the bills that created the housing market crash. George W. might have signed the No Child Left Behind act but it was Hillary’s program.
      “but in Bill Clinton’s second term, the budget was balanced and for the first time in God knows how long we were able to pay down some of our national debt.” Yes…as a result of the dot come boom. Which was short lived and “faux.”
      Newsflash: I voted for Clinton TWICE. Of course…I was in my early to mid 20’s at the time.
      As Winston Churchill said:
      From the ages of 18 – 29 people vote with their hearts.
      From the ages of 30+ they vote with their brains.
      He also said the best argument AGAINST democracy is a 5 minute conversation with the average voter.

      • alligatorsnapper - Jun 29, 2012 at 11:55 AM

        SCOTUS with the turncoat Chief Justice, voted in favor of the mandatory requirement for health insurance because Congress couched the fine in terms of a tax, which according to SCOTUS… Congress has full rights to tax anything, anytime. or any amount, unless it is Constitutionally protected such as free speech. If our ignorant Congress chooses to tax some industry it doesn’t like, which may be an industry that either does not give them enough money, does not lobby them enough, or is just politically incorrect at this moment (like Big Gulps in NYC to Mayor Bloomberg) then that industry can be taxed or if on the other hand if the Congress likes that industry they can force us to purchase that industry’s products and if we don’t purchase that product, then fine us. Congress just has to make sure they call the fine, a “tax.”

        I am going to borrow southernpatriots’ form and give the best quote of the day, from your posting, it is…”[Churchill] also said the best argument AGAINST democracy is a 5 minute conversation with the average voter.” That is truly a great thought and of course a great and appropriate quote from Sir Winston.

        Thank you for an intelligent posting and contribution to the debate. I have been reading it all since the beginning on this thread, but only had this moment during the two shifts I am working today to post. My wife is going to be glad I did something with my break time today rather than just listen to sports talk radio…ha.

        • stlouis1baseball - Jun 29, 2012 at 12:22 PM

          That’s what we are hear for Snapper. I love a good debate.

          • stlouis1baseball - Jun 29, 2012 at 12:22 PM

            Sorry…EDIT FUNCTION: “here.”

            • alligatorsnapper - Jun 29, 2012 at 2:32 PM

              SouthernPatriots have written to and emailed NBC folks running this site and appealing for an “edit” function and they told them it was on the list (maybe about 9987?) but on the list.

  5. ccshocktalk - Jun 29, 2012 at 11:54 AM

    The constitution went right out the window when the patriot act was enacted, it’s merely an artifact that the Bush administration crapped all over since nobody dared stand up to him for fear of being declared “unamerican”.

    “Three days after taking office in January 2001 as the 43rd President of the United States, George W. Bush announced No Child Left Behind, his framework for bipartisan education reform that he described as “the cornerstone of my Administration.” President Bush emphasized his deep belief in our public schools, but an even greater concern that “too many of our neediest children are being left behind,”

    I’m a registered republican and voted for Bush twice. Hell I don’t give a rats ass about democrats or republicans or communist or socialist. I just care about keeping stuff here, in the states. Trade is good, a higher GDP is great, but at what cost?

    There is simply no way around healthcare not being mandated by the federal government. The states can try to enact whatever laws they want, but anyone who knows anything about laws, state statutes etc knows that the federal government has a way of getting what they want each state to do. Unless your state has revenue sources that can provide money that the government otherwise would have gave them, they tend to do what the state wants. Perfect example is Nevada. They make enough money from Las Vegas and places like the bunny ranch that they can have different laws on “brothels” or whatever you want to refer to them as…where other states who don’t have that revenue have to enact a law that is dictated by the federal government (indirectly) and looks like it’s the states idea, and then the federal government gives them a kick back. That’s just the way it works.

    I can understand everyone being pissy about their premiums going up, and being “forced” to do something they don’t want to do, but when it comes down to it…it’s a good move to have some form of healthcare option.

    If you dont want healthcare, then i suppose we should let you rot on the side of the road…but no, a program will be there (funded by tax dollars) to help save your life. And then that same person who didn’t want healthcare soaked up our tax dollars anyways, and then they’ll turn around and file a lawsuit against the state or city for not doing more. And instead of paying $200 dollars a year, the city just lost a $5,000,000.00 lawsuit, and that same person still isn’t going to get health insurance.

    If we are ever going to dig ourselves out of the infamous debt that our leaders have created for us, we’ll have to spend less and tax a bit more. So, tax breaks, and tax kick backs are going to have to go buh bye. We’ll have to stop giving big businesses tax breaks, and the wealthy will have to start paying the same percentage as everyone else in their taxes. Tax write offs will need to go out the window.

    Mandatory health insurance will get an overhaul just like the patriot act did, and just like the no child left behind program did, but those programs, just like the healthcare program will be here to stay because nobody has an alternative….and until they do…then we might as well learn to live with it or write your senator, congressmen , state rep. etc. and have a very detailed proposition that they can present as an idea…good luck with that…

  6. stlouis1baseball - Jun 29, 2012 at 12:20 PM

    “I can understand everyone being pissy about their premiums going up.”
    This is what chaps my ass. People just don’t get it.
    I am paying $170.00+ PER WEEK for my family of four.
    “We’ll have to stop giving big businesses tax breaks.”
    We currently have the highest Corporate Tax rate in the entire world.
    Until this changes (i.e. becoming more business friendly) businesses will go elsewhere.
    Just so we are clear…
    I am paying ONE HUNDRED SEVENTY+ PER WEEK in insurance for my family of four.
    And you want to talk about my premiums going up? Wow.

    • alligatorsnapper - Jun 29, 2012 at 2:28 PM

      I pay about what you pay, and I only pay half of my health care/medical insurance premiums! My employer pays the other half, at least at this moment. They warned us that if Obamacare was fully implemented with no changes, that they would have to opt to drop coverage and push us into a fall back system.

      Just over the Yahoo news bulletin we get if we are AT & T users…

      Our Governor, Bobby Jindal of Louisiana just announced:

      “Here in Louisiana we have not applied for the grants, we have not accepted many of these dollars, we’re not implementing the exchanges,” Jindal said. “We don’t think it makes any sense to implement Obamacare in Louisiana. We’re going to do what we can to fight it.”
      Despite the court ruling, there is still a chance that Republicans in Congress can repeal much of the law next year even if they don’t have a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. Because Chief Justice John Roberts ruled that the mandate to purchase health insurance—one of the key provisions of the law—was a tax, Republicans can use a procedure called “budget reconciliation” to pass a repeal bill that requires only a simple majority to pass. But this scenario relies on the Republicans’ ability to win the White House, keep the majority in the House and gain enough seats in the Senate.”

      A simple majority to pass in a ‘budget reconciliation” bill. This makes it easier to overturn Obamacare than what I had thought. November’s election is most important. Vote for Libertarians or for Conservatives who have truly pledged to overturn this fiasco and it is possible.

      • parkcityute - Jun 29, 2012 at 4:34 PM

        Your posting prodded me into researching what our governor had to say about the Supreme Court ruling. Utah Governor Gary R. Herbert announced:

        “The Affordable Care Act is the wrong focus by a side-tracked administration that thinks a massive, top-down government program is the solution. Government bureaucracy and inflated spending is the problem. This law has divided the nation at a time when we should be focused on fixing the economy.

        This law may be constitutional, but it’s still bad policy. The Affordable Care Act imposes a one-size-fits-all plan on all states, effectively driving us to the lowest common denominator. It results in burdensome regulation, higher costs, and a massive, budget-busting Medicaid expansion. Service is improved and costs are reduced through markets, not mandates. It is now up to the American people and Congress to repeal the Affordable Care Act and replace it with a true market-based solution, a solution driven by states.”

        I think he may well be considering what your governor has done–not to implement any of Obamacare and work to abolish it.

      • stlouis1baseball - Jun 29, 2012 at 4:35 PM

        We simply have to vote for those with an (R) next to their names. I don’t know that voting Libertarian will do it. From where I sit…I feel that will only take away critical votes from the Conservative side. Otherwise, we have no hope of this thing being overturned.

        • ccshocktalk - Jun 29, 2012 at 4:55 PM

          If you’re going to vote for everyone with an R by their name you’re going to get spending spending spending and no taxes….8 years (under the bush administration that i voted twice for) spent spent spent…and gave tax breaks out the arse. Now how can you spend spend spend, and give tax breaks, and not go into debt?

          Then you go ahead and start a war in Iraq, a war in Afghanistan and a global war on terrorism. Then you want to build a big fence across the mexican border (which, by the way, actually separated a lot of Americans who now live on the Mexican side of the fence thanks to great government planning). All of this was being done while the biggest tax breaks were being given…

          That kind of spending and no taxation certainly wont fix your healthcare…it certainly wont fix our country. If you want to vote for someone who will fix budgets, fix healthcare, etc. you’re going to need to screw political parties and find out which candidates will do what. In all reality you’d need a movement larger than the occupy movement and it would need to have leaders and voices that actually can organize and get things done. Almost like the teaparty but you’d need people who actually were intelligent…

        • tigersgeaux - Jun 29, 2012 at 4:56 PM

          I don’t know how it is other places, but in Louisiana some Republicans have voted for larger government, bigger deficits, and some would have voted for Obamacare if there was a Republican president promoting it. They voted for everything Bush wanted (No Child Left Behind, Patriot Act, etc.).

          It is very true that there are a huge number more Conservatives in the Republican Party. I don’t know of any national Conservative Democrats. But, it takes alot of research and time to find out who is really conservative and not just a RINO or CINO. I have often felt ill at ease and ill-equipped to do the kind of continuing research necessary.

          We do have some Libertarians who want less government, less government intrusion into our lives (and thus are VERY AGAINST OBAMACARE). We have one US Senator (R) who will do anything to overturn Obamacare and one US Senator (D) who will do anything she can do to keep it, unless keeping it may mean her defeat. House members are different. We have some who are conservatives and some who are progressive/liberals. And some R candidates who are not conservative and Libertarians who are conservative.

          If our governor knows what he is talking about, we will only have to maintain a majority of conservatives in the House of Representatives, get about 6 – 8 flips in the Senate and change the White House and we can have an easy majority vote to overturn much of Obamacare. I hope Gov. Jindal is correct. I am going to try to find a candidate or two who are conservatives and support them by volunteering for their election. I think I can get some neighbors to do the same.

    • texangirl - Jun 29, 2012 at 8:10 PM

      We have you beat. For my family of three $220.00 PER WEEK is our number. This number does not include dental and vision. With dental & vision included $244.00 PER WEEK is deducted from my husband’s paycheck. Thank God we are healthy because the co-pays & out of pocket expense would do us in.

      • alligatorsnapper - Jun 29, 2012 at 10:27 PM

        Whoa! And our premiums will rise and/or we will be thrown into a lower quality care system! For truth in posting–I did not consider the cost of vision and dental, which my company does not cover. We have to go to another company to obtain that. Last quote I received for that about a year ago would be an additional $70 per month, and that does NOT include orthodontics. We have a great dentist who understands our situation and works with us. He has given us over $3000 of dental work free in the past several years since our whole medical plan changed. Never considered co-pays and the deductible, the more I am remembering what I was told from my company’s Health officer, I am getting depressed more and more. I work more, even double shifts, and seem to take home less and have greater expenses.

  7. southernpatriots - Jul 2, 2012 at 10:10 PM

    The following is a response to the Supreme Court decision upholding ObamaCare, or as we now call it: ObamaTax from an attorney Richard Bolen of Bolen Law Firm, Lexington, SC….

    “To all my friends, particularly those conservatives who are despondent over the searing betrayal by Chief Justice John Roberts and the pending demise of our beloved country, I offer this perspective to convey some profound hope and evidence of the Almighty’s hand in the affairs of men in relation to the Supreme Court’s decision on Obamacare.

    I initially thought we had cause for despondency when I only heard the results of the decision and not the reason or the make-up of the sides. I have now read a large portion of the decision and I believe that it was precisely the result that Scalia, Alito, Thomas, Roberts and even Kennedy wanted and not a defeat for conservatism or the rule of law. I believe the conservatives on the court have run circles around the liberals and demonstrated that the libs are patently unqualified to be on the Supreme Court. Let me explain.

    First let me assure you that John Roberts is a conservative and he is not dumb, mentally unstable, diabolical, a turncoat, a Souter or even just trying to be too nice. He is a genius along with the members of the Court in the dissent. The more of the decision I read the more remarkable it became. It is not obvious and it requires a passable understanding of Constitutional law but if it is explained anyone can see the beauty of it.

    The decision was going to be a 5–4 decision no matter what, so the allegation that the decision was a partisan political decision was going to be made by the losing side and their supporters. If the bill was struck down completely with Roberts on the other side there would have been a national and media backlash against conservatives and probably strong motivation for Obama supporters to come out and vote in November. With today’s decision that dynamic is reversed and there is a groundswell of support for Romney and Republicans, even for people who were formerly lukewarm toward Romney before today, additionally Romney raised more than 4 million dollars today.

    Next, merely striking the law without the support of Democrats and libs would have left the fight over the commerce clause and the “necessary and proper” clause and the federal government’s role in general festering and heading the wrong way as it has since 1942. As a result of the decision the libs are saying great things about Roberts; how wise, fair and reasonable he is. They would never have said that without this decision even after the Arizona immigration decision on Monday.

    In the future when Roberts rules conservatively it will be harder for the left and the media to complain about the Robert’s Court’s fairness. That’s why he as Chief Justice went to the other side for this decision not Scalia, Alito, Thomas or Kennedy, all of whom I believe would have been willing to do it.

    Next let’s look at the decision itself. Thankfully Roberts got to write it as Chief Justice and it is a masterpiece. (As I write this the libs don’t even know what has happened; they just think Roberts is great and that they won and we are all going to have free, unlimited healthcare services and we are all going to live happily ever after.)

    He first emphatically states that Obamacare is unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause saying you cannot make people buy stuff. Then he emphatically states that it is unconstitutional under the “necessary and proper” clause which only applies to “enumerated powers” in the US Constitution. Justices Ginsberg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan all went along with these statements. They never would have gone along with that sentiment if that was the basis for striking the law in total. This is huge because this means that the Court ruled 9-0 that Obamacare was unconstitutional under the Commerce clause which was Obama’s whole defense of the bill. They also ruled 9–0 on the “necessary and proper” clause. Even better, both of these rulings were unnecessary to the decision so it is gravy that we got the libs to concede this and it will make it easier to pare away at both theories in the future, which we must do. Well done.

    Roberts, through very tortured reasoning, goes on to find that the taxing law provides the Constitutionality for the law. Virtually everyone agrees that the Federal government has the power to do this as it does with the mortgage deduction for federal income taxes. This too is huge because Obama assiduously avoided using the term “tax” and now he has to admit this law is a tax and it is on everyone, even the poor. That will hurt him hugely in the polls and will help Romney. More importantly though is the fact that this makes this a budgetary issue that can be voted on in the Senate by a mere majority instead of 60 votes needed to stop a filibuster. That means that if the Republicans can gain a majority in the Senate, it can vote to repeal Obamacare in total.

    Finally the Court voted 7–2 to strike down the punitive rules that take away money from states that do not expand Medicare as required in Obamacare. This too is huge because we got Kagan and Breyer to join this decision and it can easily be applied to many other cases of extortion the Federal government uses to force states to do things they don’t want to. This is also amazing because Obamacare has no severability clause so by striking the Medicaid mandate portion as unconstitutional the whole bill should have been struck. If that happened none of these other benefits would have been accomplished. I haven’t read far enough to know how he did it but I am sure it is brilliant.

    So to recap the Roberts court through a brilliant tactical maneuver has: strengthened the limitations of the commerce clause and the necessary and proper clause by a unanimous decision, made Obama raise taxes on the poor and middle classes, converted Obamacare into a tax program repealable with 51 votes in the Senate, enhanced Romney’s and Republican’s fundraising and likelihood of being elected in November, weakened federal extortion and got the left to love Roberts and sing his praises all without anyone even noticing. Even Obama is now espousing the rule of law just 2 weeks after violating it with his deportation executive order.

    That is why I have decided this was a genius decision and that I did in fact get a great birthday present today not to mention U. S. Attorney General Eric Holder being held in contempt. What a day.”

    The Bolen Law Firm
    Lexington, South Carolina