Long live Obamacare
04-03-2012, 05:35 PM
#81
Where is the distortion indeed.
(Edit) ---- Mg, you almost got me to bite into your trolling. My bad.
Reply
0
0
04-03-2012, 05:38 PM
#83
Very well then Mg, I'll leave you with one big protip.
If I quote you as saying Brainy is flamingly gay, it doesn't mean I said Brainy is flamingly gay. It just means I quoted you as saying Brainy is flamingly gay.
P.S. Brainy, I don't really think you are flamingly gay, nor am I trying to imply this in any way, I just needed a suitably insane statement to make my point for me.
If I quote you as saying Brainy is flamingly gay, it doesn't mean I said Brainy is flamingly gay. It just means I quoted you as saying Brainy is flamingly gay.
P.S. Brainy, I don't really think you are flamingly gay, nor am I trying to imply this in any way, I just needed a suitably insane statement to make my point for me.
Reply
0
0
04-03-2012, 05:42 PM
#84
And thus Obama is in favor of (what he believes is) judicial activism and would like the court to overturn Obamacare?
By the way, Obama didn't quote anyone. The fact that he can't correctly define judicial activism reveals that the description has more to do with his own views on the matter than anything the GOP has argued.
Reply
0
0
04-03-2012, 06:19 PM
#86
So...your argument is that Obama was parroting Republicans in order to demonstrate that they were wrong?
And thus Obama is in favor of (what he believes is) judicial activism and would like the court to overturn Obamacare?
By the way, Obama didn't quote anyone. The fact that he can't correctly define judicial activism reveals that the description has more to do with his own views on the matter than anything the GOP has argued.
And thus Obama is in favor of (what he believes is) judicial activism and would like the court to overturn Obamacare?
By the way, Obama didn't quote anyone. The fact that he can't correctly define judicial activism reveals that the description has more to do with his own views on the matter than anything the GOP has argued.
.The Guardian article covers it very well, just go read the section I quoted. And since you seem to think your google-fu is so much better than mine, feel free to google the numerous conservative/Republican complaints through the years about judicial activism, that the supreme court was unelected, etc. - there's hundreds of quotes out there all over the conservative spectrum, including George W. Bush.
/Your daily dose of b-b-b-b-but Bush brought to you by the sponsorship of Brainy!
//I do find that the groupthink involving Obama has such a poor memory as to immediately forget the several decades of Conservative ranting that Obama summed up succintly in that quote hilarious, however. Numerous conservatives/Republicans were elected on that drivel, but now that Obama points it out, oh no, he said it, he wasn't rubbing their noses in it!
Reply
0
0
04-03-2012, 08:37 PM
#88
Federal appeals court be trollin' Obama.
In the escalating battle between the administration and the judiciary, a federal appeals court apparently is calling the president's bluff -- ordering the Justice Department to answer by Thursday whether the Obama Administration believes that the courts have the right to strike down a federal law, according to a lawyer who was in the courtroom.
The order, by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, appears to be in direct response to the president's comments yesterday about the Supreme Court's review of the health care law. Mr. Obama all but threw down the gauntlet with the justices, saying he was "confident" the Court would not "take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress."
Overturning a law of course would not be unprecedented -- since the Supreme Court since 1803 has asserted the power to strike down laws it interprets as unconstitutional. The three-judge appellate court appears to be asking the administration to admit that basic premise -- despite the president's remarks that implied the contrary. The panel ordered the Justice Department to submit a three-page, single-spaced letter by noon Thursday addressing whether the Executive Branch believes courts have such power, the lawyer said.
The order, by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, appears to be in direct response to the president's comments yesterday about the Supreme Court's review of the health care law. Mr. Obama all but threw down the gauntlet with the justices, saying he was "confident" the Court would not "take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress."
Overturning a law of course would not be unprecedented -- since the Supreme Court since 1803 has asserted the power to strike down laws it interprets as unconstitutional. The three-judge appellate court appears to be asking the administration to admit that basic premise -- despite the president's remarks that implied the contrary. The panel ordered the Justice Department to submit a three-page, single-spaced letter by noon Thursday addressing whether the Executive Branch believes courts have such power, the lawyer said.
Reply
0
0
04-03-2012, 08:59 PM
#89
Elite Member
iTrader: (11)
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Overland Park, Kansas
Posts: 5,360
Total Cats: 43
What the hell, I'll play.
I'm 30 years old, non smoker and don't drink (hah) in excess working for a company that offers some of the worst health insurance I've ever seen. That said, I buy my own out of pocket, and have for years. It costs me precisely $72.60 a month with a $2000 deductible. Used it one time in 2005 when I had my gallbladder removed (weight reduction) and paid exactly $2000.00 out of pocket for a $69k bill. Why so much? The hospital decided to admit me at 23:00 Sunday evening to writhe in pain until 16:30cst Thursday afternoon when they cut me open (okay, 3 small holes) and removed the pesky organ.
Sent me an itemized medical bill that my insurance company paid out. What the FU@K was the first words from my mouth after seeing the hospital wrote off $38k of the costs and insurance paid off the remainder....... Yet if I wouldn't have had insurance I'd still be completely broke in debt to the hospital likely for the entire bill.
Is the system in need of repair? Yeah, I think so. Is this Ohhhbummercare Faggggotry the answer? Not even REMOTELY close. My premiums went up in Jan, for the first time in 3 years.
How about starting this:
1. Pharmaceutical companies. Explain to me why an antibiotic imported from China costs me $279 for 30 pills?
2. ELIMINATE the 99% of Medical Malpractice lawsuits that are bogus.
3. College tuition, perhaps?
4. Outsourcing to "Specialists" for bullshit like X-Rays so they can bill more.
Etc.
I'm 30 years old, non smoker and don't drink (hah) in excess working for a company that offers some of the worst health insurance I've ever seen. That said, I buy my own out of pocket, and have for years. It costs me precisely $72.60 a month with a $2000 deductible. Used it one time in 2005 when I had my gallbladder removed (weight reduction) and paid exactly $2000.00 out of pocket for a $69k bill. Why so much? The hospital decided to admit me at 23:00 Sunday evening to writhe in pain until 16:30cst Thursday afternoon when they cut me open (okay, 3 small holes) and removed the pesky organ.
Sent me an itemized medical bill that my insurance company paid out. What the FU@K was the first words from my mouth after seeing the hospital wrote off $38k of the costs and insurance paid off the remainder....... Yet if I wouldn't have had insurance I'd still be completely broke in debt to the hospital likely for the entire bill.
Is the system in need of repair? Yeah, I think so. Is this Ohhhbummercare Faggggotry the answer? Not even REMOTELY close. My premiums went up in Jan, for the first time in 3 years.
How about starting this:
1. Pharmaceutical companies. Explain to me why an antibiotic imported from China costs me $279 for 30 pills?
2. ELIMINATE the 99% of Medical Malpractice lawsuits that are bogus.
3. College tuition, perhaps?
4. Outsourcing to "Specialists" for bullshit like X-Rays so they can bill more.
Etc.
Reply
0
0
04-03-2012, 09:22 PM
#90
Elite Member
iTrader: (11)
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Overland Park, Kansas
Posts: 5,360
Total Cats: 43
I would like someone to point out where in the Bill of Rights it says you're "Entitled" to health care, also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...Bill_of_Rights
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...Bill_of_Rights
Reply
0
0
04-04-2012, 09:22 AM
#91
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,493
Total Cats: 4,080
Originally Posted by former student of Obama
Thus, a Wall Street Journal editorial queried this about the President who “famously taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago”: “[D]id he somehow not teach the historic case of Marbury v. Madison?”
I actually know the answer to that question...President Obama taught “Con Law III” at Chicago. Judicial review, federalism, the separation of powers — the old “structural Constitution” stuff — is covered in “Con Law I” (or at least it was when I was a student). Con Law III covers the Fourteenth Amendment. (Oddly enough, Prof. Obama didn’t seem too concerned about “an unelected group of people” overturning a “duly constituted and passed law” when we were discussing all those famous Fourteenth Amendment cases – Roe v. Wade, Griswold v. Connecticut, Romer v. Evans, etc.) Of course, even a Con Law professor focusing on the Bill of Rights should know that the principle of judicial review has been alive and well since 1803, so I still feel like my educational credentials have been tarnished a bit by the President’s “unprecedented, extraordinary” remarks.
I actually know the answer to that question...President Obama taught “Con Law III” at Chicago. Judicial review, federalism, the separation of powers — the old “structural Constitution” stuff — is covered in “Con Law I” (or at least it was when I was a student). Con Law III covers the Fourteenth Amendment. (Oddly enough, Prof. Obama didn’t seem too concerned about “an unelected group of people” overturning a “duly constituted and passed law” when we were discussing all those famous Fourteenth Amendment cases – Roe v. Wade, Griswold v. Connecticut, Romer v. Evans, etc.) Of course, even a Con Law professor focusing on the Bill of Rights should know that the principle of judicial review has been alive and well since 1803, so I still feel like my educational credentials have been tarnished a bit by the President’s “unprecedented, extraordinary” remarks.
Reply
0
0
04-04-2012, 09:51 AM
#93
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,493
Total Cats: 4,080
Adler v. Board of Education (1952)
Bowers v. Hardwick (1986)
Austin v. Michigan State Chamber of Commerce (1990)
Oregon v. Mitchell (1970)
Wolf v. Colorado (1949)
Plessy v. Ferguson (1954)
I hope obama realizes that the "modera era" includes the freaking Renaissance...
Even if you only want to consider the "late modern era," then that still includes WWI and WII.
Today is considered the "Modern Times"
Bowers v. Hardwick (1986)
Austin v. Michigan State Chamber of Commerce (1990)
Oregon v. Mitchell (1970)
Wolf v. Colorado (1949)
Plessy v. Ferguson (1954)
I hope obama realizes that the "modera era" includes the freaking Renaissance...
Even if you only want to consider the "late modern era," then that still includes WWI and WII.
Today is considered the "Modern Times"
Reply
0
0
04-04-2012, 11:48 AM
#96
Elite Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,420
Total Cats: 84
The judicial branch isn't even supposed to be the final arbiter of what is constitutional and what isn't.
The States are. Through nullification:
http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/the-...ment-movement/
The judicial branch is but another tentacle of the monster that is the Fed Gov.
The States have the authority to declare Obamacare (and the NDAA, etc), unconstitutional.
The States are. Through nullification:
http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/the-...ment-movement/
The judicial branch is but another tentacle of the monster that is the Fed Gov.
The States have the authority to declare Obamacare (and the NDAA, etc), unconstitutional.
Reply
0
0
04-04-2012, 11:49 AM
#97
Elite Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,420
Total Cats: 84
From the link:
Current Nullification Efforts:
State Marijuana Laws
TSA
NDAA: Liberty Preservation Act
Health Care Freedom Act
Food Freedom Act
Intrastate Commerce
Health Care Nullification Act
Constitutional Tender
Firearms Freedom Act
10th Amendment Resolutions
REAL ID
Defend the Guard
Sheriffs First Legislation
Cap and Trade/EPA
Federal Tax Funds Act
10th Amendment Bills
State Marijuana Laws
TSA
NDAA: Liberty Preservation Act
Health Care Freedom Act
Food Freedom Act
Intrastate Commerce
Health Care Nullification Act
Constitutional Tender
Firearms Freedom Act
10th Amendment Resolutions
REAL ID
Defend the Guard
Sheriffs First Legislation
Cap and Trade/EPA
Federal Tax Funds Act
10th Amendment Bills
Reply
0
0
04-04-2012, 12:46 PM
#98
Junior Member
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Burlington, VT
Posts: 428
Total Cats: 1
So.... has anyone offered an alternative to Obamacare?
The current healthcare trend is not sustainable (particularly as the boomers start to die in large numbers).
I was on a flight recently with a woman who worked for a group of hospitals in LA. Uninsured mom's just call 911 when their kid has the flu. Why? An ambulance will come and take them to the hospital where the child gets care, but they can't go to a local pediatrician without insurance. That's the most inefficient way to provide healthcare you could possibly imagine!
If you don't think healthcare is broken right now, you haven't had to use our healthcare system.
The current healthcare trend is not sustainable (particularly as the boomers start to die in large numbers).
I was on a flight recently with a woman who worked for a group of hospitals in LA. Uninsured mom's just call 911 when their kid has the flu. Why? An ambulance will come and take them to the hospital where the child gets care, but they can't go to a local pediatrician without insurance. That's the most inefficient way to provide healthcare you could possibly imagine!
If you don't think healthcare is broken right now, you haven't had to use our healthcare system.
Reply
0
0
04-04-2012, 12:53 PM
#99
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,493
Total Cats: 4,080
I was on a flight recently with a woman who worked for a group of hospitals in LA. Uninsured mom's just call 911 when their kid has the flu. Why? An ambulance will come and take them to the hospital where the child gets care, but they can't go to a local pediatrician without insurance. That's the most inefficient way to provide healthcare you could possibly imagine
ok, Fluke.
Reply
0
0
