As I've always said elect 10 Sen. and 60 Rep.s that stand for the same thing and the Dem.s and Rep.s will change the way they deal.

Bachmann rails against ‘activist’ court after health care ruling

Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) on Thursday accused Chief Justice John Roberts and the four other justices who upheld President Barack Obama’s health care reform law of being part of an “activist” Supreme Court.

“It really is a turning point in American history,” Bachmann told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer. “We will never be the same again. … For my mind, this is clearly unconstitutional. There is no basis in the Constitution for the government to have this level of history-making expansion of power.”



I cannot believe this NutBag......
She says it clearly that Employers will drop their health care insurance because its already went up over 300% this year alone.. All because of this Ruling??????
I think not....

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/06/28/ba...th-care-ruling/

What a tool. But it is mind blowing the Rep.s can call it an activist court when the head of the court appointed by the Rep.s was the deciding vote. Just goes to show this it's against the constutition is just a Rep. talking point.

I amazed that a conservative like Roberts actually sided to uphold a plan originally presented by republicans despite the fact a democrat enacted it.

I was sorta surprised too, until I noticed so-called Obamacare is virtually identical to the plan Romney pushed in MA, with the exception of the mandate.

I wonder what the dems will say now, as they've insisted all along the mandate should not be viewed as a tax.

With Roberts forbidding the mandate as enact-able under the commerce clause, as the dems wanted, he straight-up said the Congress could constitutionally enforce the mandate under their "tax and spend" powers... now what???

I'd be for taxation going toward universal health care, but a tax/penalty because someone refuses to buy a product (insurance) is total bullshit, particularly when this scheme still leaves plenty of people without care or coverage.

Unless the cost of coverage comes waaaaaaay down (doubtful with a captive clientele in a non-competitive market) I think I will be opting for the tax should it be in-line with what I've heard being thrown around. $700 in penalty is way more affordable than the $15K per year it would cost my family to carry the coverage offered by hubby's employer. Not sure about other people's financial situations, but for my family of three living off one income, that amount is almost 40 percent of our gross annual earnings!

"Affordable Care" - my ass.

I wonder if there will be a religious exemption for those not wanting to purchase insurance coverage? As it stands, there are employers exempted from providing coverage based on religious conviction as some can see "insurance" as akin to "gambling."

Colbert to CNN and Fox: ‘You suck at news’

On Thursday morning, as the world looked on, both CNN and Fox News announced exactly the wrong news when they reported the Supreme Court’s ruling on the Affordable Care Act, President Obama’s signature piece of domestic legislation. When copies of the decision were handed out and Justice Roberts began to read the opinion, two of the biggest news organizations on the planet scrambled to announce the result, and in the process, got it wrong.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/06/29/colbert-to-cnn-and-fox-you-suck-at-news/

http://www.comedycentral.com

Weedy don't look for cost to drop as long as the lobbiest can get laws rewritten to help their people make a profit. Get the money out.

That is true Topcat,and Universal healthcare would have solved that problem. Yet, said lobbyist would have had that completely shot down.

Our new health care bill was written by the insurance Co.s and as long as they are involved in thne crafting there will be no lowering of money spent on healthcare.