“The Supreme Court led by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. upheld the heart of President Obama’s healthcare law Thursday, ruling that the government may impose tax penalties on those who do not have health insurance. The decision came on a 5-4 vote, with the court’s four liberal justices joining with the chief justice. On one hand, Roberts agreed with the law’s conservative critics who said Congress does not have the power to mandate the purchase of a private product such as health insurance. But the Affordable Care Act does not impose a true legal mandate on Americans, he said. It simply requires those who do not have health insurance by 2014 to pay a tax penalty…”.* The Young Turks host Cenk Uygur breaks it down. *Read more here from the LA Times: www.latimes.com Support The Young Turks by Subscribing bit.ly Like Us on Facebook: www.fb.com Follow Us on Twitter: twitter.com Find out how to watch The Young Turks on Current by clicking here: www.current.com
Video Rating: 4 / 5
Popular Posts:
- 2012 U.S. Healthcare PPACA: Supreme Court Decision and What Really Matters to Doctors and Hospitals
- Ultimate Guide to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA or ACA) – Understanding Obamacare and Your Health Care Insurance Options, New Plans, Programs, Bill of Rights, Full Text of Law
- ObamaCare Exchanges Undermine Liberty
- Health-Care Law Upheld Washington Post Obamacare President Obama 6/29 Newspaper
- Fox Doctors Panel Reacts to Obamacare
Incoming search terms:
- pg 1000 -1004 of affordable care act
- health care bill facts com
- the sign 666 saga and obama
- the health saga in usa about 666
- what is the obama reaction to this 666 healthcare issue?
- What is obama reaction about 666
- reactions of americans on microchip in obama health care
- bunnyfish714
- obamacare healthcare bill microchip facts
- Obama healthcare plan and 666 saga
Why would you need to amend the constitution to provide free healthcare for everyone?
“80% of Americans do not support Obamacare.” And you got that supposed fact from where exactly? Your ass? Oh and… COMMUNIST LEFT???? In the US?????
Sure, a small step that benefits the private corporations….
cenks a dick , wait till they force the prices up too ( inflation )
This swarthy lard is so tiresome. He never flags his presence in videos, so I’m forced to behold his ugliness continually.
your 100% wrong,what american were polled and asked this question “Do you favor a universal health care plan for all americans” 80% said yes with politics removed from the ? just how does it help communists,do you think heath care for all is bad.1/2 of every dollar spent on HC goes to a HC CEO as profit,under the AHCA 85 cents of every buck goes to patient care,a 35% increase right off the bad,that saves every one money,you too
80% of Americans do not support Obamacare. It is very unpopular with Americans. The only people it helps are the communist left.
when you get your drivers license and take to the road,you are bound by ALL driving rules by your state,that’s the contract you made.you don’t have any right to put people’s lives in danger,our founding fathers never gave us that right.texting while driving,or drinking is a CRIME,not a right.you have zero right under law to text while driving.you can text in millions of other places
the gov is not taking away her right to text,you call text in a billion places on earth,but not while driving,it puts lives in danger.how can a person not see the reason for this law,my state says your hands must be in a 10 – 2 position while driving,driving is not a right,you pass a test and agree to obay all laws of driving,it’s a legal contract between you and the state.the state does not say you can never text else where
the founding fathers didn’t give us the right to put others lives in danger,you can pull off the road and text in your car,you can text in a parking lot before pulling out,you can text in your own driveway before driving,there are billions of places you can text without putting lives in danger,shouldn’t your eyes be on the road while driving,what if you were in a car crash while texting and lost the use of both legs,would that be worth it then?
It’s been great debating with you though I can see that each one of us will never be able to meet in the middle with regards to ideals. Philosophers for centuries have argued over personal safety/security vs. freedom and individual liberty. One thing I think we can agree on though is that it sure is nice to live in a country where two people can freely exchange ideas and disagree with one another. That’s the most important freedom!
Because this is left up to a corporation whose bottom line is profit they will change up their business model around this bill that may leave us worse off. The bill is still open to leave the companies to do what they want with little regulation.This is still nowhere close to socialized healthcare and it sucks that the government can force to have to pay a corporation like this.Cenk always talks about a slippery slope but what about this?
This bill sucks.It’s better then what we already have but it’s a half assed bill that still kept the Health insurance companies in mind.Why pay money to a privet corporation when they set the prices when we can just pay more then likely less to still be covered completely.What if some 19 or 20 year old gets put on their parents insurance but it still may not cover certain things that they may need.
Any action that puts affects other people negatively should be illegal. It is proven that many people who are texting while driving end up casuing accidents. There are teens driving cars that kill ENTIRE FAMILIES. A car is a weapon. It is a few tons of metal with explosive liquids, more powerful than a gun or a knife. Would you also say that people should be allowed to drive all over the road if it only kills people in certain cases, or would you rather prevent it from happening and save a life?
Amazing how you can turn human lives into relativistic numbers on a whim. I could give two shits that the number of texting related deaths per year is below your personal threshold of notability. We’re still talking about a massive loss of human life that can be avoided by paying attention to what’s necessary rather than a phone. Call me a pessimist on this one, but I don’t trust people en masse to make that “responsible” decision for themselves. Humans, if anything, are rather irresponsible.
“Crime is not a freedom” That is not logical syllogism. A crime is the infraction of a law. I am saying that it should not be a crime to begin with. Mine, yours, or anyone’s life is not worth protecting or saving when it takes away free choice for the entire population group. That argument only holds for substantial harm caused to the group proper by an individual. You’d have to read the Federalist Papers or Lockean philosophy to really understand it better.
No. I understand how the Supreme Court works. I saw a demonstration a week ago.
If you have insurance, don’t worry about it. The bill requires you to buy private insurance or a 1% (2.5% in 2016 and beyond) tax that goes towards medical costs. The government will actually pay for some of the cost. Your friend should receive subsidies to help provide health insurance for her and her family. No one can be thrown off health insurance either, nor can you be denied for pre-existing conditions.
where do you get the idea that you can do things that put others in harms way,no law gives you that right.you can text anywhere else,the govs not taking that right away.if you text while driving you put mine and other lives on the line.that;s called a crime not a loss of any right you ever had.understand it now.a crime is not a freedom
Richard Nixon was a neo conservative? He as the first Republican to really champion the idea of a health care mandate, his for employers, and it was the Republican position for decades.
i think the parents of those deaths would differ with you.if 15,000 people are dying from some sort of activity than can be fixed,we do it it’s the humain thing to do.say a brand of ice cream kills 15,000 people a year,by you we should let it be sold anyway.would you like to have a drunk driver kill your child,you can text all you want in your home or a park,when you drive you’re putting others lives at risk
To me, that is not substantial enough to warrant a nationwide ban. Is it stupid behavior to text and drive? Yes, but I don’t want the government telling me not to do it.
I looked it up, “According to a study published in the American Journal of Public Health, texting while driving was a contributing factor in an estimated 16,000 traffic deaths between 2001 and 2007. It should come as no surprise, then, that the National Transportation Safety Board is recommending a nationwide ban on the use of personal electronic devices while driving.”
how do people think that driving while drunk or texting is a loss of one’s freedom,you can text and get drunk as a skunk in your home [there's your rights,it's ok].when you do it while driving you put mine,yours and everyone else’s life at risk,that’s a crime by law.a person has zero right to put others in danger..not rocket science
And again, I feel it’s bullshit to use issues of safety and risk to others to constantly erode individual liberty. How many die due to texting in a given year? Maybe 10-15,000? In a nation of 310 million I hardly feel that qualifies to restrict an entire nation’s freedom. If, an actions taken by people cause hundreds of thousands of deaths a year then maybe you can bitch about your safety, like second hand smoke perhaps.