Even if the high court votes the individual mandate unconstitutional, the health care issue is not going away. While conservatives, Tea Party zealots (and Sarah Palin) scream about "death panels" and "keeping the Government out of my health care," ever rising health care costs and an aging population will force the issue. If politicians throw up their hands and do nothing, they'll eventually be forced to do something as Medicare and Medicaid take up an increasingly larger share of the annual budget. Along with the other entitlements, these programs will eventually force taxes to be raised to pay for them - unless medical costs are somehow brought under control or politicians decide to cut other Government programs ... like say NASA and defense.

This is what President Obama and supporters of the Affordable Health Care Act won't admit but it's the terrible truth: If we don't find a way to "bend the cost curve downward," these programs will eventually bankrupt us. This may come of advancing age and having lived with "health problems" for the past 15-20 years, but I take a fatalistic view toward all of this. Nobody reading this is going to live forever. The human body is a machine with moving parts and lubricants. All machines eventually break down. If you make it to - or live past - the average life span of 72 or whatever the number is, consider yourself lucky. A hundred years from now none of this will matter anyway. By that time most of us will be distant memories - if we're even thought of at all.

Former DJ

[x] GF gave him that name for his prowess between the sheets

this


she's like 20 obv

I did not care for the OP

Dirty-old-man-O-vision

Congrats to former dj on the 2012 nichlemn award

Seems like a trivialization that most lib media influenced folks make.

SCOTUS job duties are pretty basic (much to the chagrin of lib "journalist"): Uphold the Constitution of the USA. They won't over turn parts or pick through that overgrown tumor of legislation with a red pen, the aforementioned justices, will rule the mandate unconstitutional because IT IS.

Also Kagan shouldn't even be on the bench considering she helped craft the proponents brief.

Dear willwes23:

I'm not sure if you're indicting me with your "lib media influenced folks" comment, so I'll let that pass.

The Drudge Report web site is running a splash speculating that President Obama might have been "tipped off" that the Justices are inclined to rule the individual mandate unconstitutional. If that is true, such a "leak" would have had to come from one of the nine justices since only they are present during the meetings where these preliminary votes are taken.

President Obama may have tripped himself up during that infamous State of the Union address. With all nine Justices sitting right there in front of him showing proper respect and deference for the office of the Presidency, Obama could not resist criticizing them for the Citizens United decision. The visible reaction of Associate Justice Alito made it clear that the President's open rebuke did not go over well with Alito and several of his fellow justices. Now it's payback time ...

It's interesting that Obama, once again, could not restrain himself from commenting about the court. By "preempting" the justices with another public comment, (before the decision is even handed down), it lends credence to the notion that maybe the President was tipped off. After all, if the President had received word that the Justices had preliminarily voted 6-3 to uphold the individual mandate, he would certainly be keeping his mouth shut. To make a statement like that, citing "judicial activism" and how Republicans have generally been opposed to judges "overreaching" and failing to show restraint, Obama is already playing politics with the Affordable Care Act. No surprise there though ... both sides are playing politics with the Affordable Care Act.

Former DJ

Thomas shouldn't be on the bench because he got bribed.

Their clerks know about the decision immediately afterwards.

So when does everyone get their broccoli?

And if they want to keep their fancy Supreme Court clerkship I'm sure they know not to say a damn word.

Yeah! It's not like they have ever done something like that before, where they take out part of a law but keep the rest. History shows that's never, ever, ever happened before, and if anyone disagrees I'm gonna stick my thumbs in my ears and go LALALALALALALALALALALALA

I'm sure willwes feels exactly the same about the liberal SCOTUS of the 60s and 70s. I know he doesn't feel those were activist judges.

Excuse me just a second, suzzer, but you seem to be implying that history exists, which quite clearly it doesn't because me and willwes and all the other constitutional purists don't believe it does.