Long live Obamacare - Page 4 - Miata Turbo Forum - Boost cars, acquire cats.

Welcome to Miataturbo.net   Members
 


Current Events, News, Politics Keep the politics here.

Reply
 
 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 03-29-2012, 05:29 PM   #61
Elite Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,454
Total Cats: 80
Default

Except we're not. (supposed to be a democracy)
In a pure democracy 51% can vote to take away the rights of 49%.
e.g. 51% can vote to execute 49%, or to tax the 49%, 1%, whatever, at 100% rate.

In an Individualist Republic, 99.99% cannot take away the rights of any individual.
JasonC SBB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-29-2012, 05:31 PM   #62
Boost Czar
iTrader: (61)
 
Braineack's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 72,908
Total Cats: 1,793
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hustler View Post
hahaha!!!

the reaction to Trayvon Martin is exactly why we aren't one.
Braineack is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-29-2012, 05:34 PM   #63
AFM Crusader
iTrader: (18)
 
olderguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Wayne, NJ
Posts: 4,438
Total Cats: 84
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hustler View Post



http://www.latimes.com/news/politics...,2058481.story



The Supreme Court's conservative justices said Wednesday they are prepared to strike down President Obama’s healthcare law entirely.

Picking up where they left off Tuesday, the conservatives said they thought a decision striking down the law's controversial individual mandate to purchase health insurance means the whole statute should fall with it.

The court’s conservatives sounded as though they had determined for themselves that the 2,700-page measure must be declared unconstitutional.

"One way or another, Congress will have to revisit it in toto," said Justice Antonin Scalia.

Agreeing, Justice Anthony Kennedy said it would be an "extreme proposition" to allow the various insurance regulations to stand after the mandate was struck down.

Meanwhile, the court's liberal justices argued for restraint. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the court should do a "salvage job," not undertake a “wrecking operation." But she looked to be out-voted.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said they shared the view of Scalia and Kennedy that the law should stand or fall in total. Along with Justice Clarence Thomas, they would have a majority to strike down the entire statute as unconstitutional.

An Obama administration lawyer, urging caution, said it would be "extraordinary" for the court to throw out the entire law. About 2.5 million young people under age 26 are on their parents' insurance now because of the new law. If it were struck down entirely, "2.5 million of them would be thrown off the insurance rolls," said Edwin Kneedler.

The administration indicated it was prepared to accept a ruling that some of the insurance reforms should fall if the mandate were struck down. For example, insurers would not be required to sell coverage to people with preexisting conditions. But Kneedler, a deputy solicitor general, said the court should go no further.

But the court's conservatives said the law was passed as a package and must fall as a package.
The justices are scheduled to meet Wednesday afternoon to debate the law's Medicaid expansion
Don't count your chickens before they hatch
olderguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-29-2012, 05:38 PM   #64
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
 
Joe Perez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Delicious and Moist.
Posts: 26,328
Total Cats: 1,926
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JasonC SBB View Post
This article expounds on the above:
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/...y-father/7617/
Wow, that guy would really benefit from taking a basic J-school class on writing. Didn't even mention the basic point until page 2.

But that's tangential.

Unfortunately, I don't see the situation changing, especially now that "free" healthcare has sort of become the de-facto standard in most western nations, including America's Hat*. And any attempt (by a politician or political party) at meaningful healthcare reform† will invariably be met with loud hails of

"(name of political party) are trying to take away (our/your) healthcare!"






* = Now that Rick has thrown in the towel, I'm going to start insulting Canada and Canadians a lot more frequently. It seems like the right thing to do.

† = I am using the common term "healthcare reform" as it is generally understood within the context of present-day dialogue within the US to mean "health insurance reform."
Joe Perez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-29-2012, 05:41 PM   #65
Elite Member
iTrader: (7)
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Knoxville, TN
Posts: 2,121
Total Cats: 44
Default

I work 40+ hours a week directly for a healthcare company and I do not receive healthcare benefits.....

I am under 25 and no I am not on my parent's policy....unfortnately.

I need a new job, damn.
flier129 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-31-2012, 10:01 PM   #66
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 134
Total Cats: -19
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 18psi View Post
Since I work for a large Health Care Insurance company, I think obama should go f* himself.
Agree.
ReplaceDisplace is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-03-2012, 11:36 AM   #67
Boost Czar
iTrader: (61)
 
Braineack's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 72,908
Total Cats: 1,793
Default

I'm sorry, didn't Obama study the Constitution in Community Organ...Law School?????

Quote:
Originally Posted by Obama
Ultimately, I am confident that the Supreme Court will 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 …
Quote:
Originally Posted by Article III. Section 2.
The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.


and lol at strong majority. thank god for the republic.
Braineack is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-03-2012, 11:54 AM   #68
Tour de Franzia
Thread Starter
iTrader: (6)
 
hustler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Republic of Dallas
Posts: 29,114
Total Cats: 351
Default

I love this idea that congressional majority supercedes law. I also believe America is wising-up to this type of rhetoric.
hustler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-03-2012, 11:58 AM   #69
Crumple Zone Tester
iTrader: (7)
 
mgeoffriau's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Jackson, MS
Posts: 7,656
Total Cats: 447
Default

I like how Obama keeps pointing out that the Court is "unelected", as if this is a defect of the position, rather than by design.
mgeoffriau is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-03-2012, 12:00 PM   #70
AFM Crusader
iTrader: (18)
 
olderguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Wayne, NJ
Posts: 4,438
Total Cats: 84
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hustler View Post
I love this idea that congressional majority supercedes law. I also believe America is wising-up to this type of rhetoric.
Hopefully.
olderguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-03-2012, 04:03 PM   #71
Boost Czar
iTrader: (61)
 
Braineack's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 72,908
Total Cats: 1,793
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mgeoffriau View Post
I like how Obama keeps pointing out that the Court is "unelected", as if this is a defect of the position, rather than by design.

thoughts on same:

Quote:
President Obama’s favorite word, as we’ve learned repeatedly, is “I.” He uses it on a constant basis. He uses it to claim credit and to assign blame. He uses it to cajole and to threaten. He uses it to plead and to prod.

But he doesn’t use the word “I” purely out of ego. He does it because for President Obama, “I” represents the executive branch. And the executive branch, in Obama’s view, is the ruling branch of American government.

President Obama’s latest attack on the Supreme Court is just the latest evidence of his deep-rooted disdain not just for the Constitution, but for the system of checks and balances it represents. Prior to his election, Obama told Americans that we were just days away from “fundamentally transforming the United States of America.” He didn’t mean that simply in terms of policy, although he certainly wanted redistributionist policy to take center stage. He meant it in terms of governmental structure.

President Obama has made it his mission to wield the club against the other two branches of government in a manner unprecedented in American history. Yesterday, Obama, rejecting the heart of judicial review for purposes of his own power, stated, “I am confident that the Supreme Court will 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.” That, of course, is precisely what the Supreme Court does on a daily basis: it reviews acts of a democratically-elected Congress. The reason the justices are unelected is that they are supposed to be free of outside influences in defending and protecting the Constitution.

But for Obama, the Supreme Court is an obstacle to his own power. And so he goes to war with the Supreme Court. As I noted yesterday, this is nothing new for President Obama – in his 2010 State of the Union Address, he lied about the Supreme Court and attacked them as judicial activists for striking down campaign finance laws that violated the First Amendment. That prompted Justice Alito to mouth the words, “Not true.” But undercutting the authority of the Supreme Court in a setting where the justices had to sit and take it was just the beginning, apparently.

And Obama doesn’t respect Congress, either. Congressional authority is his bęte noire. He has routinely suggested, “if Congress won’t act, I will.” He said it about his jobs plan. He said it about an executive order regarding the Food and Drug Administration. His budget officials say it about his legislative priorities. Obama has used the power of the executive branch to “recess” appoint officials to the National Labor Relations Board, even when Congress wasn’t in recess; “when Congress refuses to act, and as a result, hurts our economy and puts our people at risk, then I have an obligation as president to do what I can without them,” he said. He has installed an enormous number of czars without Congressional approval; he has granted waivers under Obamacare and the No Child Left Behind Act repeatedly. “I refuse to take no for an answer,” Obama said while making another non-recess “recess” appointment at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Obama’s deputy press secretary, Josh Earnest, characterized Obama’s position best when it comes to moving his priorities into law: “If that includes Congress, all the better … [But] that’s no longer a requirement.”

President Obama is clearly not a fan of the democratic process, or of checks and balances as a whole. That’s why he suggested to Russian President Dmitri Medvedev that he would have “more flexibility” to make concessions to the Kremlin after his “last election.” In our republic, the President is still supposed to work with the other branches of government to achieve the public’s priorities; he’s not supposed to be a two-times-voted dictator, to do as he sees fit. Nor is he supposed to disdain the frictions that our republic cherishes. Yet that’s precisely what Obama does.

In August 2011, Obama stated, “It's been a long, tough journey. But we have made some incredible strides together. Yes, we have …. We knew this was going to take time because we've got this big, messy, tough democracy.”

Obama doesn’t like that “big, messy, tough democracy.” He wants what Arthur Schlesinger Jr. once called The Imperial Presidency. He wants the Supreme Court to do his bidding, or shut up. He wants Congress to get out of the way. He wants power, in its purest, most unbridled form. Should he win re-election, he will undoubtedly pursue that vital goal. After all, how are you going to get “fundamental change” without fundamentally undermining the Constitutional structure?
Braineack is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-03-2012, 04:05 PM   #72
Boost Czar
iTrader: (61)
 
Braineack's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 72,908
Total Cats: 1,793
Default

Braineack is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-03-2012, 04:52 PM   #73
Tour de Franzia
Thread Starter
iTrader: (6)
 
hustler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Republic of Dallas
Posts: 29,114
Total Cats: 351
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mgeoffriau View Post
I like how Obama keeps pointing out that the Court is "unelected", as if this is a defect of the position, rather than by design.
I'm a bit surprised that Hussein is leaning on the SCOTUS, I don' think SCOTUS appreciates that.
hustler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-03-2012, 06:11 PM   #74
Elite Member
iTrader: (6)
 
blaen99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 4,112
Total Cats: 27
Default

Well, it'll definitely be interesting to see how our bet plays out Hustly.

But I would love to find a non-super rightwing site that is reporting on his unelected comment. After reading through over 3 pages worth of google results, all I can find on it are either Faux News or sites that make Faux News look leftist.
blaen99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-03-2012, 06:19 PM   #75
Crumple Zone Tester
iTrader: (7)
 
mgeoffriau's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Jackson, MS
Posts: 7,656
Total Cats: 447
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by blaen99 View Post
But I would love to find a non-super rightwing site that is reporting on his unelected comment. After reading through over 3 pages worth of google results, all I can find on it are either Faux News or sites that make Faux News look leftist.
Yeah, like that bastion of extreme right-wing neoconservatism, the Guardian.

EDIT: Are you really that bad at googling?
mgeoffriau is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-03-2012, 06:26 PM   #76
Antisaint
iTrader: (17)
 
Vashthestampede's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Danbury, CT
Posts: 4,659
Total Cats: 54
Default

Health care is bullshit.

People abuse the ---- out of it.

The only times I've gone to the Dr or the hospital was when I couldnt stop the bleeding or the bones were obviously broken.

Meanwhile, I wait in the chair with a softball sized wrist and grown men with "stomach aches" get seen before me.

That was when I had insurance though. I bet if I went in now, uninsured saying "me no speaky engly", I'd been seen immediately and probably for free.
Vashthestampede is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-03-2012, 06:27 PM   #77
Elite Member
iTrader: (6)
 
blaen99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 4,112
Total Cats: 27
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mgeoffriau View Post
Yeah, like that bastion of extreme right-wing neoconservatism, the Guardian.

EDIT: Are you really that bad at googling?
Did you read the article that you linked, Mg?

There has to be more to Obama's comments then that.

Quote:
The president chided Republicans for making "judicial activism" an election issue, by objecting to rulings ranging from the supreme court's finding of a right to abortion to the recent striking down by federal judges of a referendum barring gay marriage in California, while pressing the judiciary to overturn the will of Congress.

"I'd just remind conservative commentators that, for years, what we have heard is, the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism, or a lack of judicial restraint, that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law," Obama said. "Well, this is a good example, and I'm pretty confident that this court will recognise that and not take that step."
This has to be the biggest case of distorting something that someone said I've seen on here yet if that is all he said. His unelected comment came from paraphrasing other people for ***** sake.
blaen99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-03-2012, 06:31 PM   #78
Boost Czar
iTrader: (61)
 
Braineack's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 72,908
Total Cats: 1,793
Default

Quote:
Jan Crawford of CBS reports that a three-member panel of the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals has ordered the U.S. Department of Justice to "answer by Thursday whether the Obama Administration believes that the courts have the right to strike down a federal law."
lawls.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504564_1...lth-care-case/
Braineack is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-03-2012, 06:34 PM   #79
Crumple Zone Tester
iTrader: (7)
 
mgeoffriau's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Jackson, MS
Posts: 7,656
Total Cats: 447
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by blaen99 View Post
This has to be the biggest case of distorting something that someone said I've seen on here yet if that is all he said. His unelected comment came from paraphrasing other people for ***** sake.
Really? He summarized (what he believes) is a particular argument concerning judicial activism (he's wrong about the definition of judicial activism, by the way), and then concluded by saying, "[T]his is a good example."

Where's the distortion?
mgeoffriau is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-03-2012, 06:35 PM   #80
Elite Member
iTrader: (6)
 
blaen99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 4,112
Total Cats: 27
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Braineack View Post
So, three Republican appointees make Obama's point for him?

Bravo Brainy, bravo. I didn't know you had the cajones to post something like that.
blaen99 is offline   Reply With Quote
 
 
Reply

Related Topics
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Need help - Stock Balancer and Fastforward overlay pulleys Frank_and_Beans Supercharger Discussion 13 09-12-2016 09:17 PM
Noob to Miataturbo from MA JxPhan Meet and Greet 3 10-02-2015 03:17 AM
"Chimney Ethanol" E100 MiataGarage Engine Performance 5 09-30-2015 12:04 AM
WTB HPDE miata - Texas Voltwings Cars for sale/trade 0 09-27-2015 07:40 PM


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:53 PM.