Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
Tuesday, March 27, 2012 | 2:02 a.m.
This week, the Supreme Court is hearing arguments regarding the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act’s requirement that all individuals purchase health insurance, referred to as the individual mandate.
Two of the central arguments it will hear in favor of the mandate are that: 1) people without insurance obtain treatment in emergency rooms, thereby “free-riding” on the rest of society; and 2) health care is the single biggest cause of bankruptcy in America. I hope the nine most esteemed legal minds in the nation will be able to see the inherent contradiction in those two arguments.
The individual mandate is an assault on our country’s founding principles of individual freedom and property rights. The Fifth Amendment in the Bill of Rights states that “No person shall … be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” We shall see if liberal justices can twist and parse those words sufficiently to strip them of all meaning.
Nothing less than the fate of our country hinges on this decision. The progressive idea that individuals should provide for others is the premise for socialism, and it has bankrupted every country that has embraced it. Our nation’s founding principles have enabled us to create the most successful society in history. If the Constitution can be parsed out of existence, then our “life, liberty and property” have no protections, and the United States will cease to exist.
Without regard to whether I agree with this author or not, I must say this is one of the finest letters I have seen selected for publication inasmuch as the author has stated clear premises and a logical argument.
It is a refreshing change.
Excellent piece. Concise, directly ot the crux of the matter and without bias. The problem of health care will continue to exist but a more logical and responsible method is needed than what was enacted.
If Mr. McCord wants the freedom to be uninsured, he could waive all treatment he could not afford to pay for. But I am not free, legally or morally, to allow him to die in the hospital parking lot or at the scene of his auto accident.
The price of Mr. McCord's freedom of choice is the loss of my freedom of choice to pay less for my own health care and lower peoperty taxes instead of covering operating losses at UMC.
"The progressive idea that rich individuals should provide everything for others that refuse to work is the premise for socialism, and it has bankrupted every country that has embraced it." look at Greece.
CBO has said that Obamacare is unfunded to the tune of $1.6 trillion including the $580 billion stolen from Medicare. Double what was stated just 2 years ago and still rising.
The tragedy of the Act has not even nearly been realized. The individual mandate is only the tip of the iceberg with the heavy taxation and payment burdens and penalties that are in this cruel piece of legislation that was crafted in dark rooms by cheats and incompetents to come later.. The Act will be a Trojan Horse to American who will never be able to pay the tab for this legislation. Remember that half of wage earning Americans pay no income taxes. Purpotedly because they are too poor. Who do you think will foot the bill for this pig of legislation.
The Preemies will prevail. The fact that they are hearing now, before the law takes full effect and impact, is a promising sign.
Obamacare was bad policy and bad law. Parts were good and liked by all: No refusals for pre-existing conditions, dependents up to age 26 can receive covergae from parents' health care. The rest, particularly the mandate, is an obomination of the Constitution.
You can't step all over the Constitution to suit your will and others for the sake of economics. Sadly, this President and his advisors STILL have not learned this lesson. And he is an authority in Constitution law. From Harvard.
Excellent letter.
Carmine A. DiFazio
REPEAL THE AUTO INSURANCE MANDATE!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I can't afford it due to all of my accidents.
"FDR? he was the president when our nation won WWII."
Yeah, was he not the guy that lead us into a war where over a million Americans where hurt or killed and created the nuclear bomb and all we did was exchanged one group of dominate evil nations for another group of dominate evil nations.
Woooohooooo....you go FDR.
I liked FDR social security plan. It was a total of 1% tax now it is a total of 15% tax. The start benefit age was well above the average expected death date so the majority of people would never get the benefit.
Wooooohoooo.......you go FDR.
Great letter. The majority of people who go to the emergency room without health Insurance are those who would not pay for it anyway, as they are low income. When I worked in the low income black area of St Petersburg FL I overheard woman talk of taking their babies to the emergency room because she was crying, or coughing, the kid had an earache, etc. 99% of these should have gone to a clinic, but going to the emergency room is the only health care these people know.. The government would better serve these people by opening up walk in clinics staffed by the military and/or opening up VA centers they already have, then they can charge what they need to. This will lessen the burden of those who actually pay for Health Ins. and bring that costs down or at least more stable.
And what's bad about Obamacare?
Leaves in place employer-provided insurance. About 60 percent of Americans get health insurance through work, and studies show many people like their coverage. The law keeps that system in place. It does not require employers to offer insurance, but it does impose taxes on employers if they don't offer insurance and their employees qualify for new health insurance tax credits.
Health insurance exchanges. These are for people who have to go out and buy health insurance on their own, or for employees of small businesses. The law creates state-based exchanges, which are virtual marketplaces where individuals and small businesses can comparison shop.
More regulation for insurers. People won't be able to buy high-deductible, catastrophic plans that only kick in for major medical expenses. Insurers will have to cover preventive care, and they won't be able to cut off coverage unfairly or set annual limits on benefits.
An individual mandate. This requires people to buy insurance unless they qualify for a hardship exemption. People who don't buy insurance would have to pay a penalty on their taxes, but they can't be jailed or face criminal penalty if they don't pay. The government could withhold their tax refunds, though. This is one part of the law that is being challenged before the U.S. Supreme Court.
Medicare. The law makes changes to how Medicare pays doctors and other health care providers. Taken as a whole, the new rules aim to pay doctors for good patient outcomes instead of paying them per procedure, also called "fee-for-service." The law eliminates excess payments to the Medicare Advantage program, which typically offer seniors extra benefits beyond what traditional Medicare offers.
New taxes. To pay for the expanded health care coverage, the law institutes several new taxes. One of the biggest is increasing Medicare payroll taxes for couples who make more than $250,000 a year and individuals who make more than $200,000; their rates go from 2.9 percent to 3.8 percent, and the 3.8 percent A new 10 percent tax on indoor tanning is already in place, as well as increased taxes on tobacco to pay for children's health insurance.
Research on better treatments. A comparative effectiveness research center will conduct and publish scientific research to find which treatments are the most effective. The government hopes easy-to-access information for doctors, patients and insurance companies will reduce procedures and treatments that don't really work, wringing waste from the system.
Electronic records. To reduce inefficiency and duplication of services, the government is promoting standardized electronic health records, so doctors could see which tests and procedures patients have already had.
Who will pay for those uninsured visits to emergency rooms or hospital stays?
Do you realize those costs are passed over to your insurance policy and don't disappear into a void?
Health care in this country runs at 17.5% of our GDP because it's run for profit. No European went bankrupt losing their homes over health care.
Granted the system set in place may not be the best but it can be tweaked if both parties worked together. Of course that won't happen because the right will not give an inch when it comes to dealing with Obama on any issue.
This argument is about President Obama.
This is the same plan pushed by the Heritage Foundation and most republicans in the past.
It only became bad when Obama gave it his blessing.
Obama has spent too much time trying to woo conservatives and this mandate was an olive branch for them to come on board.
The only reason this is going to court is that the republicans will do anything to discredit President Obama.
They not only didn't vote for it, but used the mandate as a poison pill.
The only plan that would really work is medicare for all and public ownership of hospitals.
Richard McCord is just another armchair amateur Constitutional 'scholar', one of many on the right who know nothing and everything at the same time. His contention that free riding and bankruptcy are contradictory is poor reasoning at best when considering the millions of people who have gone through one or the other. Another of his complaints regarding doctors working for free because Medicare is paying less needs to be examined for context. How much medical attention do people receive that is either useless or bad? Should Medicare always pay even for incompetent care?
dipstick: get your facts straight. FDR was NOT president when "we" won WWII. He was dead! HST was the prexy at the time and he was the one who authorized the dropping of the A-bombs on Japan. McCord is right about this being a seminal moment in our history. The "healthcare" issue isn't really about "health care" any more than the contraceptive issue was about religious freedom or women's health. It's about Osama Obama's and his fellow travelers lust for power and control by government drones over our lives and our freedoms. The parable would be the Arab & the camel. The Arab, snug and cozy in the warmth of his tent, was begged to allow the camel to put his nose in the tent for a bit of that warmth. Being a humanitarian, the Arab agreed. Soon, the camel asked for permission to also put his neck inside. Again, the Arab agreed. Then it was the camel's torso until, eventually, the Arab found himself outside and the camel had taken over the tent. That's the way it is with "Progressives." An inch here, an inch there, and suddenly you've lost all you had and it's too late. Beware of "progressives," folks. They are just camels disguised as human beings!
remember FDR? he was the president when our nation won WWII.
----------
I believe that was Harry Truman
::::::::::::::::
Ola - We must all thank Mitt
:::::::::::::
And here we thought Frank could never like a Conservative who has promised to get rid of Obamacare
Helping others isn't just an underlying concept of socialism, it's also the basic premise of the Christian religion.
As far as socialism bankrupting countries, has the letter writer checked America's balance sheet lately? Unfettered capitalism appears to be worse than amoral.
Having got that off my chest, I tend to agree with the writer that the cost of health care may bankrupt every industrialized country no matter what type of governmental system rules. Tightly rationed health care is inevitable.
No country has healthcare without mandates. Hell, Washington had mandates for people to but hospital coverage, Heath coverage, muskets, balls, powder.
The lead healthcare plaintiff dropped out because of thousands in medical bills.
Peoples lousy decision is what damages the country. Lack of education, violence, obesity.
A business model where people aren't required to pay for the goods and services they consume is doomed to failure. If you order a burger and refuse to pay you can be arrested for " defrauding the inkeeper". Yet there were 123 million emergency room visits and vast numbers failed to pay a dime and were not punished.
$78 billion in losses to our 1700 emergency rooms.
http://www.politifact.com/rhode-island/s...
Washington had a major problem with seriously ill seamen. How did he deal with it? MANDATES!!!
http://www.forbes.com/2010/02/19/expensi...
The above nonsense combined with million dollar hospital bills is what needs to be dealt with next. Cancer clinics are going belly up because of these almost incomprehensible drug costs. Treating a group of people with cancer can cost as much as a WW2 battle ship. Millions.
Can we have a health care regulation to allow terminally ill to die with dignity WITHOUT FAMILY AND OTHER INTERVENTION FORCING EVERY KNOWN POTENTIAL TREATMENT (at the cost of taxpayers and insurers) AND REMOVE THE GUILT PROCESS FROM THE NEXT OF KIN? It is unconscionable the way we insist that medical staff continue beyond heroic measures while the patient is comatose and has negligible chance of consciousness--even if s/he "survives."
Medical care isn't forced on anyone. People choose life. If I am diagnosed with a terminal illness today I can refuse all treatment and die in my hot tub.
The late stage prostate cancer drug Provenge extends life by a couple months at a cost of $10 grand per infusion. Men are lining up for it. It is one of the main threats to Medicare. Millions of men get prostate cancer.
It sounds like the subject of the day is the mandate. Here is a brief update from USAToday on the Supreme Court Hearing:
In the first hour of a two-hour hearing, the court's liberal justices were largely silent, but its four most conservative members expressed reservations that upholding the mandate could significantly alter the powers of the federal government. So did Justice Anthony Kennedy, often the court's swing vote.
Kennedy said Tuesday that the law "changes the relationship of the federal government to the individual in a very fundamental way," and he pressed the Obama administration's lawyer, Solicitor General Donald Verilli, on why the insurance requirement wouldn't leave Congress with nearly limitless authority."When you are changing the relationship of the individual to the government, do you not have a unique obligation to show authorization under the constitution?" he asked.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/...
Dipstick said: ...."you sound like one of those republicans during the '30s when FDR started Social Security."....
Is this the same Social Security program that is broke? Fine job the politicians have done with that, don't you agree?
You can expect the same performance with Obamacare.
Most of the supporters of Obamacare on this blog are greedy!! Greedy Seniors that is. By the time the dung hits the fan in the next 2 generations they will have long been dead. They just want theirs now and they want it FREE.
Broke..My wife gets her SS direct deposit on the third Wednesday of the month like clock work. SS should be partially privatized with individual accounts that start at birth. More like a defined benefit pension plan but it works fine.
What is more problematic are the young prodigious spenders that refuse to save and invest. The baby boomers have trillions in net worth. Check it.
When the conservatives came up with and supported the 'individual mandate', it was a great idea. When conservatives want everyone to pay to 'have skin in the game', it's a great idea.
When liberals want everyone to 'have skin in the game' via the 'individual mandate', it's Socialism.
If a heart attack costs $100k in treatment (don't pick at the number), how many years do you have to pay at $500/month for the insurance company to come out even? About 16? If people sign up for health insurance close to the time they get expensively ill, they get way more back in benefits than they paid in. Therefore, the 'individual mandate' or 'personal responsibility clause' is needed.
While I'd like to see an opt-out from ACA, if you're brought to the ER unconscious with no ID (it was lost with your consciousness) and you've opted out, how does the ER know whether to treat you if they can't identify you?
Get rid of the health insurance companies and their middle-man profit. Medicare for all like the rest of the civilized world!
Comment removed by moderator. ALL CAPS
"It will RUIN AMERICA!"...
Jeez, are ya sure about that???
DEATH BY HEALTH CARE!!!
It'll be worse than Nuclear WAR!!!
Hyperbole...
"Is the use of exaggeration as a rhetorical device or figure of speech. It may be used to evoke strong feelings or to create a strong impression, but is not meant to be taken literally."
(via wikipedia)
"Yeah...that's the ticket."
http://live.washingtonpost.com/five-myth...
Outside of Divine Intervention or the money from you and me, how can we expect to cover both the huge profits of insurance companies AND the cost of health care??
The nine SupreMoes and SupremeCurlies and SupremeLarrys are up their ears in concerns, but it boils down to a simple decision: Pay or Die.
Like the parable of the Arab/camel in tent, we need to decide whether we want some control of our fate or we are willin' to give up our all for an illegitimate occupant free-loading on us.
In the current scheme of things, it's obvious the bills are passed on to those who CAN pay. With a better plan, we would share the burden with everyone.
In the current scheme, 'private property' is being taken for 'public good' and we foot the bill or lose our ERs and both. In other words, what we have seen occurring over the last 50 years in the medical world is a creeping socialism, a quiet ripping off of services by those who can't pay while those who can pay have bought this crap. Let's call a spade a spade.
Obligating everyone to join in the compensation as well as the benefit seems the only democratic approach that ends the free-loading and funds the future of health care. Like George Washington told me at the banks of the Potomac one dark night back a few years, "Joe, we can't do this thing without your help. Either you're with us or you're against us. Now what's it gonna be, punk?"
The Constitution does not prevent the government from instituting a single-payer, or universal health care system. It has partially done so with Medicare. The majority can decide to institute taxes to pay for it. It's not a good idea, but they can do it.
The individual mandate is not a tax. It is a required payment to a private company, which violates the Constitution's due process provision. Even if viewed as "public use," i.e., the money is taken to benefit the general public, the Constitution requires "just compensation." On either grounds, the law is unconstitutional.
Profit margins in health insurance are typically 2 - 3%.
There's no doubt that this Supreme Court case is important, but this letter provides some classic lessons in partisan fear-mongering. Gmag called it right. Richard McCord's hyperbolic statements reflect popular nationalist hype; "...the fate of our country (really?)..the United States will cease to exist (oh, my)... the most successful society in history..." By what standard? Who could possibly believe that nationalizing health care delivery will lead to America's demise? The stars and stripes are not under siege, at least not from democratic and liberal principles.
I don't see any slippery slope into socialism, through healthcare or otherwise. I do see that the obligations of societal welfare, responsibility and sharing are being interpreted as socialism, and that the very word "socialism" has been loaded with negative connotations for Richard McCord. He wields it like a threat.
In his defense against the imaginary evil, Richard McCord's exaggerated but empty rhetoric claims that socialism has "bankrupted every country that has embraced it." That is simply not true, but so what? It fits the narrative.
Public dialogue will never be elevated if we waste time and energy entertaining rhetoric that appears profound, says nothing, and serves only to kindle ideological fires.
I'm still reading through today's transcript, but it appears that by basing the mandate on the Commerce Clause the government has unwittingly given the Court the chance to back away from earlier decisions without actually reversing itself. In other words, the Court has the opportunity to draw a line and say "We will not bend the Commerce Clause any further."
Justice Breyer doesn't seem to be firmly committed to this being a proper use of the Commerce Clause and we could see a 6-3 decision striking down the mandate.
I am using the transcript from Politico: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/031...
I read the other day that Reagan's solicitor general gives odds of an overturn 10%. This is pretty consistent with most conservatives who actually know something about law.
I know in your tea-bagging echo chamber it is unthinkable that the health care law could stand, but people out here in reality don't expect the supreme court to overturn anything.
A few key points to remember...
The MAJORITY of Americans support the health care reform law.
Obama was a constitutional law professor and is very intelligent. He wouldn't make something blatantly unconstitutional the centerpiece of his first term.
The supreme court bases their rulings on the constitution, law, and precedent. They don't take into consideration what angry seniors write on their blogs or in the comment section.
TEA - "Librals/progressives/socialists/marxists are not capable of looking at precedent/the failures of said ideologies."
I'll give you a failed ideology. Cut taxes for the wealthy to create jobs. Better know as Reagan Economics, Trickle Down Economics, or as Bush the Elder called it, Voodoo Economics.
Here is another failed ideology. Get rid of the Glass Steagall Act because you can trust banks to self regulate.
How about letting industry self regulate on pollutants they can dump into water supplies?
If Obama Care is over turned, I hope you nay sayers have deep enough pockets to support the increase in health care cost as companies jack up their rates. CEO's definitely will look to increase profit margins.
Vernos: Our PROPERTY TAXES pay for indigent medical care at emergency rooms.
Medical care IS FORCED upon anyone and everyone found unconscious say after a car accident or found unconscious on a sidewalk, unless YOU CARRY WITH YOU A MEDICAL POA AND / or in advance, explain to one and all that you do NOT want extraordinary medical means to prolong your life..... DO NOT RESUSCITATE ARM BANDS....
My family is putting 5-4 odds on a 5-4 decision to let Health Care stand.
$300 Million minimum, all cash. See ad on Lamy Pens website.
How this takes me back to the fear mongering of the 60's in the John Birch Society. Their meetings were incredibly hopeless. There is nothing like creating fear to try get your way. Sadly, it works with many people.
Have you ever pondered deeply how fear torments a person? How there is a never ending list of things to fear? Put one to rest and there are others on the horizon to keep our adrenalin fix going. Fear is associated with guilt on some level, even if we cannot recognize it.
If you can ponder that, see if you can spend time pondering love. What it means, how it benefits everyone, how it stops the fearing.
Love is the only "religion" there is, and fear is the antipathy of love.
Where else in the world can we find two posts so incredibly divergent on the same thread as the one by peacelily followed by the one by acejoker?
One connects with history, humanity and our strengths; the other to 'phenomina' (sic) of hopelessness gone deep.
@Roselenda, if you live in Clark County, and EMS is the first responder, one may need more than a POA and bracelet.
In a critical life threatening situation, EMS doesn't have much time to look for POA's. They will resusitate.
In Clark Co, there is a specific DNR for EMS. This is important because they may be required to resuscitate someone if they cannot quickly locate the permission. This extra step is worth the $5 if anyone is serious about a DNR instruction.
Here is important information that pertains to EMS DNR in Clark Co.
Clark County Prehospital EMS DNR information:
http://www.southernnevadahealthdistrict....
DNR Application:
http://www.southernnevadahealthdistrict....
Other forms:
http://www.southernnevadahealthdistrict....
While I am at it, here is information and forms for the NV Advance Directive and Healthcare Decisions Power of Attorney. They are free.
One can have them witnessed by non-relatives (free) or have it notarized for a fee.
http://dhcfp.state.nv.us/HIPAA/NV%20Law%...
What will "ruin America" is to continue to funnel money into a broken system. Health insurance companies operate one of the few pure cash businesses left. They sell nothing - other than the promise to pay if you have medical expenses - then they write vague policies that can be interpreted in more than one way to keep from paying. There is also unethical conduct, like the insurance company who instituted an automatic audit of any policy holder who had breast cancer surgery, with the intention of finding a technicality that allowed them to cancel the policy.
As long as companies with a profit motive decide who gets care and for what, we will continue to pay more for less.
Taxes are so low most companies and half the individuals pay nothing. Reagan and Clinton didn't have trillions in yearly med costs....competition from China , India and South America. They didn't have 10000 people a day retiring.
We are a mature economy with an aging population. That puts restraints on growth and job creation. It also causes entitlement cost bubbles.
Neither Reagan or Clinton had any major wars during their Presidencies either.
@TEA, what would be your suggestion for the minimum Income Tax for seniors receiving $14,000/yr in Social Security benefits, without any other income?
Would that be a tax on a tax?
I find it interesting that Mr. McCord says that socialism has bankrupted every country that has embraced it. So why is Mexico such a poor country? They certainly have not embraced socialism. But my biggest question is why China is now the 2nd largest economy in the world and owns a significant amount of U.S. debt when they are very much a socialist country?
Comment removed by moderator. Personal Attack
@bigk, China has a decreasing poverty rate as they raise prospective consumers out of poverty. They are creating their own market for their products.
There is an interesting video of the address of President Felipe Calderon, at the World Economic Forum in Davos, on Mexico's process of getting out of their financial crisis. He is leader of the G20.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pla...
In his talk, he speaks about Mexico reaching it goal of Universal Healthcare for all of its citizens.
Healthcare has built Canada into a place to enjoy life. No Canadian has ever lost his home, his life, his livelihood because of a broken arm. In Amerika, this happens every day.
Break an arm and it can easily cost $5,000 plus time off from work.
REMEMBER ALSO, that Barrick Gold escapes taxes in Nevada so they can bring their riches to Canada, to help fund the Health Care in Canada. Nevada helps to pay for the great Canadian Health Care System, and Navadans suck hind tit to pay for Socialized Medicine on their own ticket while denying the same for all of us here where the gold is dug.
Ever heard of 'Survival of the Fittest'?
The purpose of my comment was to show that Mr. McCord has one of his facts wrong. I have no idea why lvfacts101 mentioned Korea in his reply because I never said anything about Korea. But since he brought it up, look at S. Korea. Their standard of living has greatly improved in the past 30 years and they have universal medical care. And now I will mention another republic that shuns socialism, the Philippines. Look at how their people live.
left left right right. left is right right is left.
mitt or obama. they serve the same masters.
the true holders of power in this country laugh at your divisiveness. sad.
Richard......
So you want freedom from health care?
Do you have health insurance?
I BET YOU DO!
Do the nine Supreme Court Justices have the best
and full, lifetime health insurance?
YOU BET THEY DO!
Don't hand us this crap about freedom from
health care until you give up your own.
The same goes for all of the other greedy,
heartless republicans,
INCLUDING WILLARD ROMNEY.
ALL AMERICANS NEED HEALTH INSURANCE!
The letter writer's positions are imbecilic, poorly researched, and drag down the intelligence level of all Americans, further, anyone subscribing to these beliefs is really intellectually incurious.
Point by point:
He said"
"This week, the Supreme Court is hearing arguments regarding the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act's requirement that all individuals purchase health insurance, referred to as the individual mandate."
I say: This is a portion of what they are hearing arguments over. This statement, while partially true, is untrue on its whole, and misleading in its entirety.
He said:
"Two of the central arguments it will hear in favor of the mandate are that: 1) people without insurance obtain treatment in emergency rooms, thereby "free-riding" on the rest of society; and 2) health care is the single biggest cause of bankruptcy in America. I hope the nine most esteemed legal minds in the nation will be able to see the inherent contradiction in those two arguments."
I say: These "2 Central" arguments are of a tertiary nature and represent only the very biased letter writers thoughts. Calling Clarence Thomas an esteemed anything renders the whole argument this letter writer makes moot.
He said: "The individual mandate is an assault on our country's founding principles of individual freedom and property rights. The Fifth Amendment in the Bill of Rights states that "No person shall " be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." We shall see if liberal justices can twist and parse those words sufficiently to strip them of all meaning."
I say: Just compensation in this case would be called health care. If you don't want it, be man or woman enough to stand up and pay for it, don't be some sissified amateur constitutional lawyer who cries "mommy mommy, i don't want no doctor, the mean Uncle Sam is trying to make health care better for everyone, an an an I don't wanna pway"
He said: "Nothing less than the fate of our country hinges on this decision. The progressive idea that individuals should provide for others is the premise for socialism, and it has bankrupted every country that has embraced it. Our nation's founding principles have enabled us to create the most successful society in history. If the Constitution can be parsed out of existence, then our "life, liberty and property" have no protections, and the United States will cease to exist."
I say: Nothing less than the fate of your mental health is on the line when you think that sending all Americans to the doctor in a fair and equitable way is going to "Unhinge" our country.
Get over it -- we are a partially socialized country. We have socialized roads, socialized police departments, fire departments, courts, child protective services, socialized armed services, adding socialized medical care in this highly diluted form currently known as "Obamacare" will not be the end of the experiment known as America. You know it and I know it.
As far as us ceasing to exist, maybe Cuba would annex us in our time of need, you see, in Cuba if you are smart enough to become a doctor you become a doctor, there is no AMA keeping the supply of doctors artificially low to keep their salaries high.
The USA ceases to exist because of "Obamacare"? Only if people like you continue to believe this "Henny Penny, The sky is falling" rubbish, if you are this easily led, who knows what you are capable of.
C'mon now, let's be serious, it isn't just healthcare liberals crammed down our throats, anything liberals propose or pass is destroying America. But not for liberals, America wouldn't be so screwed up.
Perhaps Tim should leave this den of socialism and move to a country without it. I might suggest the Philippines. They have no national health insurance, no social security, and no unemployment insurance. You should see the standard of living there.
Yeah, we really messed up on ending slavery, the right to vote for women, equal pay for equal work, the civil rights act, Medicare, social security, ending the Vietnam war, being the backbone of the armed services enlisted men and women, among many other things.
A bunch of screw ups we are.
You guys have mainlined the koolaid for too long. All junkies have a jaundiced view of reality.
Manilla is absolutely beautiful, Tim. You think its2hot here? Wait til you try some of that WET heat, with tropical storms and LATENCY til hell won't have it.
And you'll just love the recipes for kitty cats and little doggies.
And you can bribe cops really easy. You'll totally enjoy your new-found respect for what freedom is all about. Bon voyage!
And I almost forgot, there is no Equal Employment Commission. Check out employment opportunities online at Philippine Airlines. Female flight attendants must be unmarried. An accounting clerk must be under ago 30. You can verify these requirements on their website.
As sung out years ago, "another one bites the dust." Another step in the right direction as the Supreme Court asks the right questions and observers note that this thing, the whole thing, looks like history. Sure, Congress will take it up again. But Americans still have their individual right to pursue life, liberty.....and their own style of life and standard of living.
So -- as we warned -- this constant court packing by the mssrs. Reagan, Reagan, Bush The Smarter, Bush the dumber, Bush the dumber, coupled with the obstructionism of judicial appointment during Obama's first term is being celebrated as a judicial coup in the making.
Obamacare is the law of the land that has been about 10% implemented. Having the Supreme Court be an arm of government that cancels laws like is being suggested here is Anti-American.
Be careful you right winger/republican/teabagger/dictator wannabees wish for -- when Obama is re-elected we will have Barack Hussein Obama, the NOT Born in the USA, Muslim Terrorist, Community Organizer all ready to make sure the Clarence Thomas's and Samuel Alito's of the world are neutered.
Y'all should have played nice when you had a chance.
The Marbury v. Madison decision is stunning in its unconstitutionality. It was a decision that while left idle for almost 2 generations has allowed the Supreme court to be the most powerful of the 3 branches of government.
Here, for the feeble minded who post their right wing rubbish here is the real story:
From 1789 when we became a country, when the constitution was ratified, until 1803, the Supreme Court never did anything other than be a final appeals court. In 1803, there was a case called Marbury Vs Madison, and Madison was James Madison. He was the Secretary of State in the Thomas Jefferson administration and Marbury was a guy that James Madison was supposed to make a judge and didn't and Marbury sued. The court, John Marshal was the Chief Justice who was Thomas Jefferson probably number one political enemy, and the court ruled that Jefferson won, Jefferson and Madison won the case and they won the case because the law under which Marbury was saying that he should be entitled to be a judge, was unconstitutional.
Now Jefferson found himself in a terrible bind because on the one hand he won the case which is what he wanted; on the other hand, he freaked out. He wrote, "If this decision is allowed to stand, then indeed has the constitution become a suicide pact. "For with this constitution one branch of government and of that, the one which is unelected and unresponsive to the people has taken upon itself the ability to declare what is and is not the law of the land." And so he said, "If this allowed to stand, the constitution has become a thing of wax in the hand of the judiciary and the republic is doomed."
The violence the ferociousness of Thomas Jefferson's response to that Marbury Vs. Madison case was so intense that for the next 25 years the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Judge Marshall, for the remaining 25 years he never again decided a case based on constitutionality. It wasn't until after he died that Marbury v Madison was utilized.
So basically, for the first 50 years of this country's existence, the Supreme Court never decided or very rarely decided constitutional issues. Now the Supreme Court does nothing but decide constitutional issues, this is a power that was not given to the court by the constitution. And arguably, Congress has the right to take this power away from the Supreme Court: They need to.
Here is from a letter written By Jefferson to Justice William Johnson in 1823:
"This practice of Judge Marshall, of travelling out of his case to prescribe what the law would be in a moot case not before the court, is very irregular and very censurable. I recollect another instance, and the more particularly, perhaps, because it in some measure bore on myself. Among the midnight appointments of Mr. Adams, were commissions to some federal justices of the peace for Alexandria. These were signed and sealed by him, but not delivered. I found them on the table of the department of State, on my entrance into office, and I forbade their delivery. Marbury, named in one of them, applied to the Supreme Court for a mandamus to the Secretary of State, (Mr. Madison) to deliver the commission intended for him. The court determined at once, that being an original process, they had no cognizance of it; and therefore the question before them was ended. But the Chief Justice went on to lay down what the law would be, had they jurisdiction of the case, to wit: that they should command the delivery. The object was clearly to instruct any other court having the jurisdiction, what they should do if Marbury should apply to them. Besides the impropriety of this gratuitous interference, could anything exceed the perversion of law? For if there is any principle of law never yet contradicted, it is that delivery is one of the essentials to the validity of the deed. Although signed and sealed, yet as long as it remains in the hands of the party himself, it is in fieri only, it is not a deed, and can be made so only by its delivery. In the hands of a third person it may be made an escrow. But whatever is in the executive offices is certainly deemed to be in the hands of the President; and in this case, was actually in my hands, because, when I countermanded them, there was as yet no Secretary of State. Yet this case of Marbury and Madison is continually cited by bench and bar, as if it were settled law, without any animadversion on its being merely an obiter dissertation of the Chief Justice"
What the Supremes are doing, is clearly out of bounds, constitutionally.
MSG to the 9: reject the whole thing. Without the individual mandate, even Congress would not pretend that we can afford all the added Medicaid to the UNentitled.
Jeff...
As you know, when it suits the right's purpose, the Constitution is ETCHED IN STONE.
When it does not, it is AMAZINGLY MALLEABLE!
When interpretation is necessary:
"It shall say what we NEED it to say, not what it WAS MEANT to say! Don't be silly!"
When it's context seems perfectly clear:
"You left-wing kooks are simply not understanding what our Founding Fathers meant to tell you; can't you READ!?!?"
Bottom line;
It is folly to allow a divided court to decide the fate of our future Health Care delivery system based solely 'along party lines'.
Frankly, if my wife or daughter needs a life-saving medical procedure, I could give a damn what the framer's of the constitution thought or meant 275 years ago...and the ONLY REASON some folks care today is that it backs up their personal, government-sponsored, politically-radicalized and wholly indoctrinated point of view, assuming you view it through the proper prism.
Judging by how low the number of delegates Ron Paul is getting, I'd venture to say that most American's could give a rats arse about individual freedoms.
The freedoms that these idiot republicans keep
yapping about are....
The freedom to be stupid.
The freedom to be ignorant.
The freedom to have no health care.
The freedom to have no teeth.
This current batch of crazy, heartless republicans
has dumbed down our country more than any party
in history.
These greedy republicans need to lose their own
health care to understand the plight of millions
of low income Americans who have no health care.
STOP REPUBLICAN GREED!
ALWAYS VOTE DEMOCRATIC!
You deadbeat constitutionalists were just shown, in elegant candor and beautiful English that the Nemesis of Thomas Jefferson took and created law and process out of thin air.
If you guys were Christians and Jesus Christ showed up and told you He was an independent you'd shut the door and ignore Him.
The ignorance of right wing/conservative/teabagger/republicans knows no limits.
Interesting results:
CBS/NYT Poll on Obamacare (ACA)
Support 36%
Do Not Support 47%
Too dumb to answer 17%
Then you take the parts of Obamacare and poll them one at a time you get this:
Do you approve making it mandatory to cover preexisting illness?
Support 85%
Do not support 12%
Too dumb to answer 3%
Do you approve of being able to keep children on parents insurance until they are 26?
Support 68%
Do not support 28%
Too dumb to answer 4%
And it goes on. And on.
The right wing poison and derangement syndrome. Alive and kicking.
You may retain and exercise your right to free speech. I may retain and utilize my right to close my door and not listen to you. You do not have a right to be heard, just to speak.
Roslenda:
Welcome to the Sun Commentary world. You seem to be hard core right winger who leaves the flame throwers at home. Your comments seem, so far to be very sincere. I disagree with you almost universally, but it looks like you are a good neighbor and tolerant of other points of view.
Jim the Joker:
Well, you know what you are.