Shesh... I'll make ONE more comment...

Unless you are being sarcastic.... The ACA did NOT make insurance universal...Far from it. It's had a small net positive effect, but it's been a HUGE expense for the few additional covered people it produced. The 70 million target that was touted as the "uninsured" in the USA during the bill's marketing still largely exists, they don't have insurance and are not paying the fines either...

But this was about ILLGEALS, who don't file taxes, won't be fined, are NOT entitled to insurance subsidies though the ACA and are NOT getting insurance coverage anyway. They get free emergency health care just by showing up to the emergency room.

A responsibility which is used to justify a lot of utopian programs and which I believe is being stretched past the founder's intent of the general welfare clause. What part of LIMITED government gets lost on folks?

I suggest you read the federalist papers and other historical documents discussing the constitution and it's drafting. Get some background on what the framers intended... Because if today's ruling says anything, it's that the intent is the key, even if the language is imprecise...

At this point, I shall not go around the bush again.... Have a nice day, I'm done here.

Perhaps, but a month later, if she shows up in labor the delivery WILL be done without any requirement to have insurance or evidence that she has the ability to pay.

It may not be full health care, but it's health care and it's expensive and other's pay the costs for it though higher fees, which is the very thing the ACA was *supposed* to fix, but hasn't and if truth be told, can't fix.

So we find ourselves on that proverbial slippery slope, the camel's nose is in the tent etc.... If the ACA fits this argument, then where IS the line here? I wonder if there can be any more limits to government now...

Personally when we step across the "personal responsibility" line with our general welfare arguments I think we've clearly crossed into areas where we should NOT go even if the constitution permits it. Making people buy insurance is clearly past that point.

Oh well, it's a done deal for now. I just hope that the "fix" for this isn't as bad as the last "cure" that got tried and that we can pull it back from the brink ...

Tell that to the pigs..

Naw, it's called a faraday cage, you can build one into your living room... Well, unless you are trying to get way from ALL radiation.... Then I'm not sure where you go for that... A lead lined room isn't going to work out well, under ground is not good.... Not to mention that it's going to get darn cold if you eliminate all thermal radiation....

No, no, it doesn't block them.. It prioritizes the traffic to the Pizza ordering sites higher... They are marketing to Women here....

Please do.. Only next time, before you hit send OK?

I think he's holding the wrong thing myself if a baby is the desired destination...

No, "the common defense" is actually one of the FEW constitutional responsibilities of the federal government so I'm fine with that. It's all this "general welfare" justified utopian stuff that we need to be a lot more careful about.

If you get to the point where you cannot go cheaper in housing, you are living in a slum, you have no car to speak of and the night job doesn't help... I suggest you seriously consider doing something about your day job because apparently you are in a dead end field getting minimum wage or less. Heck, even vocational training would be a step up for you at that point.

Somehow, I just don't think you are at that point and I suspect that if you *really* wanted to, you could find cheaper housing or another job in an area where it's possible to live for what they pay.

Ah yes, the general welfare clause.... Much over used these days....

You do know that there are many legal scholars on both sides of this with some really good arguments. But I think the 10th amendment is key here:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

So yes, the federal government *can* do this... I'm saying that it shouldn't do this. I'm also saying that it should, by default, fall to the states and ultimately to the people before something like this happens at the federal level. I know it's idealistic of me, but I content that we have long ago departed from our founding principles and as these "General Welfare" justifications get grander and more far reaching we are seeing the results. We are seeing Utopian dreams foisted onto us using the general welfare clause. This needs to stop and instead be replaced with self reliance, hard work and responsibility.