Typical response from the far left: don't reply with logic, just resort to name calling.

Anyone else on here as bored as I am with Tim Colling's tiresome, unrelenting,diatribe(s) ?

"I am hoping they mean that the State will proceed under constitutional law."

You're an optimist. They mean that our state government will do whatever it wishes to do, and we the people will have to spend years and millions of dollars fighting it in the courts, working our way up to the SCOTUS. Even when (if) we win at the SCOTUS the state will have had a long period of time to do its usual harm to the taxpayers and make huge payoffs to the special interests in the terms of favorable treatments, laws and regulations.

They are unbelievably arrogant. That's just the way it is.

No one knows how the Supreme Court will rule. I find it alarming for the State to say even if the Court finds the mandates un constitutional we will proceed. I am hoping they mean that the State will proceed under constitutional law.

"...at least those who voted this guy back into office, got the government [they] wanted!"

Actually, that may be more true than you realize. Brown got elected on the strength of unlimited public sector union contributions to his campaign.

The public sector employee unions will no doubt continue to reap huge rewards as the state moves closer and closer to having the state provide (or fail to adequately provide) all healthcare under a socialistic state-managed single payer system.

I say this because I speculate that eventually the state will require all state healthcare employees under such a system to join the SEIU or some other public-sector employee union. That will ensure every larger dues revenue for those unions, which is their primary goal.

- Tim

http://www.TrustworthyCare.com

Robert, that sounds about right. Arrogant, agenda driven, bleeding heart liberals. The law, regulations, the will of the people don't play into their considerations or decisions. "We", at least those who voted this guy back into office, got the government we wanted! Some of us actually knew better and voted against Jerry "Moon Beam" Brown.

Correct me if I am wrong ? Jerry is saying, even if the Supreme Court or 2/3 of the Californian's do not want Obamacare we will have Browncare.

Bett, what is it that makes people so mushie when it comes to breaking the law? If you are here illegally why should you be entitled to the benefits that a legal resident is to receive? They may only consume 1% of healthcare benefits but they consume about $10 billion annually in total benefits. That amount of money that was left in the state budget could provide a lot of healthcare benefits for all of the legal residents in the state. You and your kind can cry RACIST all you want but I believe in obeying the law no matter what color or race you are.

Tim, glad we have you onboard to assured that all caregivers we can trust are also legal.
hope you are helped by the ACA when you pay their health insurance coverage, with your 35% tax credit (a boost to small business). That is unless your generosity extends to paying over $50 K per year (you sound like a warm and personable employer who cares about your private sector employees). But who will pick the fruits, veggies and nuts we're supposed to be eating, if not those durn illegals, who work for cheaper than our citizens, pay taxes, and consume 1% of healthcare costs?

btw, which Republican hero are you backing to run the US non-regime?

http://www.bettmartinezinsurancesolutions.com

The issue before the SCOTUS is whether the individual mandate is allowed according to the constitution. If it is determined to not be constitutional should a state be able to enact a law achieving the same result and have it be determined to be constitutional? Can a state claim "states rights" while enacting a law that prohibits a certain group from voting? It seems that a state law could reasonably and legally stand until SCOTUS rules on the issue at which time the state law would need to be changed, as in the Heller case, DC gun ban, which forced Illinois and Chicago to write new work arounds to keep their anti gun agendas in place.

That's the whole point of the SCOTUS exercise. Does Federal law trump state's rights on this issue? They are not reviewing whether or not a state can impose a mandate, as Mass has already done.

Eric the Massachusetts program and mandate was instituted prior to any SCOTUS ruling, just as the DC gun ban was. Since the DC gun ban was deemed to be unconstitutional no other state, and yes I know DC is not a state, can now come back and ban private ownership of handguns. Why is this issue of constitutionality different. Doesn't Federal law trump State law?

The issue of constitutionality issue is whether the Federal Government has the right to impose a mandate on the states. Regardless, currently each state has the right to impose such a mandate, if it chooses, as Massachusetts has already done under a Republican governor.

Of course, how silly/reasonable of me. Thanks for the reality check!

"Does "all state residents" and "we have to have everybody buying some level of health insurance to meet their responsibility to the system" mean that the illegal portion of the state will be required to buy insurance too?"

Of course not. You must be a racist. Only legal residents who are not government employees or union bosses should have to pay for everyone else's healthcare.