205 replies to this topic

[Strike]

I've been about as polite as you can expect and asked you some serious questions about your opinions. If you're donoe with the conversation fine but you're the one getting all hot under the collar and insulting just because I think the White House has a case.

Whatever, I tried.

Right. Yet you ignored my question about whether Bill Gates should be required to purchase health insurance.

[MDC]

Right. Yet you ignored my question about whether Bill Gates should be required to purchase health insurance.

Because you kept ignoring dodging my questions and said you were done with the conversation.

I don't think Gates would need to be covered because he can pay any healthcare bill.

[NewbieJr]

You've been asking for an hour? LOL.

Dodge #11

[Strike]

I don't think Gates would need to be covered because he can pay any healthcare bill.

Then you must find Obamacare unconstitutional. It would require him to buy health insurance or pay a fine.

[jerryskids]

This discussion of emergency rooms makes me wonder if the birth control topic is going to rear its head on this. If Obamacare were a means to provide for emergency services and/or end-of-life care, you could make a strong case for the need to pay a priori because we're all either going to need it, or we'll need it to be available if we need it. Birth control treads dangerously close to the broccoli analogy. And with the way the law is written, a new administration could determine a whole new set of broccolis.

Bump. If you guys are done beating that dead horse, I'd like to introduce this for discussion.

[Strike]

Bump. If you guys are done beating that dead horse, I'd like to introduce this for discussion.

Honestly I'm not sure what you're asking.

[jerryskids]

Honestly I'm not sure what you're asking.

I'm presuming that the emergency care part passes constitutional muster, but what about birth control? Many people can rightfully argue that they'll never need that service.

[MDC]

Then you must find Obamacare unconstitutional. It would require him to buy health insurance or pay a fine.

I'm sure the White House would argue that this is no different than making Bill Gates buy into Social Security he'll never need.

Now that I answered your questions, can we get back to your idea about hospitals checking whether a patient has coverage or $$$ before administering emergency care? Do you think that's a good idea? How do you get around treating people who need immediate life-saving treatment?

Jerry, until I have some idea what Strike is proposing the horse isn't dead yet.

I'm also not sure what you're asking.

[Strike]

Now that I answered your questions, can we get back to your idea about hospitals checking whether a patient has coverage or $$$ before administering emergency care? Do you think that's a good idea? How do you get around treating people who need immediate life-saving treatment?

No, because I never said that. I said that the justification for the new law based on the premise that everyone is a potential consumer of health care is flawed because that in and of itself is only true due to another law. We could just as easily repeal that first law if we wanted. I didn't say we should, nor did I say hospitals should check for ones ability to pay before rendering treatment. Those are all your conclusions, just as those who chastised Ron Paul mischaracterized his comments on this issue. That's why, in addition to focusing on the constitutionality of Obamacare I focus on solutions. I'm more concerned about what we should do about health care than I am any of these other issues. It sickens me that we're having to deal with this bastard bill that didn't address costs. It's a shame we can't focus on the real issues regarding health care.

[Recliner Pilot]

I'm sure the White House would argue that this is no different than making Bill Gates buy into Social Security he'll never need.

Mebbe that tongue-tied lawyer from the DOJ shoulda argued the Social Security angle trying to save this turd.

[Strike]

I'm presuming that the emergency care part passes constitutional muster, but what about birth control? Many people can rightfully argue that they'll never need that service.

Obamacare puts a board in charge of defining the requirements that have to be offered by health insurance plans. Honestly, that's one of the things that bothers me most about Obamacare. Under Obamacare I can't just buy catastrophic health care insurance. I have to buy a comprehensive plan that they get to define and that will cost a lot more than I might want or need to pay. And you know that's going to include things like birth control. I don't see the SCOTUS overturning that though unless they overturn the whole bill based on the individual mandate, which is my hope.

[Strike]

I'm sure the White House would argue that this is no different than making Bill Gates buy into Social Security he'll never need.

SS wasn't passed under the Commerce Clause. Obamacare was. Apples and Oranges.

[Recliner Pilot]

Dodge #11

You have not asked him a single question in this thread, Bubbles.

[jerryskids]

Obamacare puts a board in charge of defining the requirements that have to be offered by health insurance plans. Honestly, that's one of the things that bothers me most about Obamacare. Under Obamacare I can't just buy catastrophic health care insurance. I have to buy a comprehensive plan that they get to define and that will cost a lot more than I might want or need to pay. And you know that's going to include things like birth control. I don't see the SCOTUS overturning that though unless they overturn the whole bill based on the individual mandate, which is my hope.

My point, which I'm obviously not communicating well, is in the justification of the individual mandate itself. Part of the justification is the "eventual need" argument, which isn't true for many things covered by Obamacare.

[Recliner Pilot]

My point, which I'm obviously not communicating well, is in the justification of the individual mandate itself. Part of the justification is the "eventual need" argument, which isn't true for many things covered by Obamacare.

Are you wondering if the individual mandate can be thrown out, but the rest of the bill survives?

[BudBro]

I'm presuming that the emergency care part passes constitutional muster, but what about birth control? Many people can rightfully argue that they'll never need that service.

as conservatives, we NEED birth control included. it's relevance is that we have a majority in this country that are irresponsible and would cost us 100 times the amount of birth control to take care of the welfare chulren. see: today. the welfare mentality of those who support the left sees no cost or repercussion for their actions. the left will always bail them out by stealing from the treasury built by the workers.

the weird part of zero pushing the birth control thing is he thinks he's hurting the religious right because his arrogance wants his cartoon face on the billboard showing who took down religion, but really he's just diminishing the future welfare voters the left builds their platform upon. if we would turn this around and thank obama for pushing birth control onto the welfare state, he'd throw the entire thing out. the more we can limit the unproductive from reproducing, the better.

[Recliner Pilot]

Zero has some 'splainin to do.

5th Circuit biotchslaps Obama with order.

Appeals court fires back at Obama's comments on health care case

By Jan Crawford Topics Supreme Court . (Credit: AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster)

(CBS News) 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 panel is hearing a separate challenge to the health care law by physician-owned hospitals. The issue arose when a lawyer for the Justice Department began arguing before the judges. Appeals Court Judge Jerry Smith immediately interrupted, asking if DOJ agreed that the judiciary could strike down an unconstitutional law.


The DOJ lawyer, Dana Lydia Kaersvang, answered yes -- and mentioned Marbury v. Madison, the landmark case that firmly established the principle of judicial review more than 200 years ago, according to the lawyer in the courtroom.


Smith then became "very stern," the source said, telling the lawyers arguing the case it was not clear to "many of us" whether the president believes such a right exists. The other two judges on the panel, Emilio Garza and Leslie Southwick--both Republican appointees--remained silent, the source said.


Smith, a Reagan appointee, went on to say that comments from the president and others in the Executive Branch indicate they believe judges don't have the power to review laws and strike those that are unconstitutional, specifically referencing Mr. Obama's comments yesterday about judges being an "unelected group of people."


I've reached out to the White House for comment, and will update when we have more information.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504564_162-57408827-504564/appeals-court-fires-back-at-obamas-comments-on-health-care-case/

[jerryskids]

Zero has some 'splainin to do.

5th Circuit biotchslaps Obama with order.



http://www.cbsnews.c...alth-care-case/

I'm sure that all of the DOJ lawyers are happy that their boss has pissed off the judicial branch.

[BudBro]

I'm sure that all of the DOJ lawyers are happy that their boss has pissed off the judicial branch.

writing a 3 page paper will interrupt their current crime spree.

[penultimatestraw]

Nope. Look, throughout this health care debate I've made numerous proposals as far as fixing the problem. At least they're a starting point. Post me a link to the thread with your plan in it. Then we'll talk. Same with you Bud. I want to see if you're both just whiners of whether you've actually got any solutions.

To fuel your derail, here's my plan:

1. Everyone needs to pay into a centralized, government-sponsored insurance. Wealthy people can supplement their care out-of-pocket. If private, "luxury" health insurance evolves, so be it.
2. Insurance should pay for an allocated number of routine visits, important meds (sorry, Viagra and Ambien) + catastrophic care - which kicks in after a certain $ value is exceeded. The rest is out-of-pocket.
3. Every visit needs a copay. Preventive care visits have reduced fees.
4. One set of rules should eliminate a lot of the coders/billers/admin required by a multifaceted insurance industry. A central EHR should eliminate a lot of the medical records personnel, too.
5. Tort reform to promote less defensive medicine. Should also reduce malpractice premiums, though this hasn't happened when reform has occurred. Establish a central medical panel to review validity of malpractice cases, toss the illegitimate claims early.
6. Somehow limit the "me too" drugs that pharma/device industry devotes too many resources developing, purely for financial reasons. Eliminate drug reps and advertising, too - the use of meds/devices should be based on need and affordability, in that order. (notice this flies in the face of free market economics). Might need to revisit the patent laws as well.
7. Teach the American public that waiting for noncritical tests/procedures is not tantamount to care rationing any more than basing their availability on ability to pay.
8. Doctors take a pay cut, particularly specialists. We need more primary care and the pay disparity is not justified.
9. Paying for all this can come from income tax, rather than placing the onus on employers. We can cut our military 90%, increase the retirement age for SS and eliminate all foreign aid to help with the bill. Plus up the sin taxes on tobacco, alcohol +/- fast food. And eliminate the Bush tax cuts.
10. Initiate meaningful end-of-life policies which mandate advance care directives and empower physicians in futile situations to stop wasting resources on lost causes.
11. Most importantly promote healthy lifestyle among our lazy, fat, overindulgent society.

Medicine is like no other industry. Few people want the product until they are not in position to pay for it. Most diseases are indolent and tangible health detriment isn't evident until potentially irreversible damage has been done. Very little is "quick fix", and almost everything is expensive. Why would anyone think supply/demand would apply to such a market? What incentive do insurers have to provide care for those who cannot afford it - do you let people suffer/die because they lack $ to pay for insurance?

[drobeski]

To fuel your derail, here's my plan:

1. Everyone needs to pay into a centralized, government-sponsored insurance. Wealthy people can supplement their care out-of-pocket. If private, "luxury" health insurance evolves, so be it.
2. Insurance should pay for an allocated number of routine visits, important meds (sorry, Viagra and Ambien) + catastrophic care - which kicks in after a certain $ value is exceeded. The rest is out-of-pocket.
3. Every visit needs a copay. Preventive care visits have reduced fees.
4. One set of rules should eliminate a lot of the coders/billers/admin required by a multifaceted insurance industry. A central EHR should eliminate a lot of the medical records personnel, too.
5. Tort reform to promote less defensive medicine. Should also reduce malpractice premiums, though this hasn't happened when reform has occurred. Establish a central medical panel to review validity of malpractice cases, toss the illegitimate claims early.
6. Somehow limit the "me too" drugs that pharma/device industry devotes too many resources developing, purely for financial reasons. Eliminate drug reps and advertising, too - the use of meds/devices should be based on need and affordability, in that order. (notice this flies in the face of free market economics). Might need to revisit the patent laws as well.
7. Teach the American public that waiting for noncritical tests/procedures is not tantamount to care rationing any more than basing their availability on ability to pay.
8. Doctors take a pay cut, particularly specialists. We need more primary care and the pay disparity is not justified.
9. Paying for all this can come from income tax, rather than placing the onus on employers. We can cut our military 90%, increase the retirement age for SS and eliminate all foreign aid to help with the bill. Plus up the sin taxes on tobacco, alcohol +/- fast food. And eliminate the Bush tax cuts.
10. Initiate meaningful end-of-life policies which mandate advance care directives and empower physicians in futile situations to stop wasting resources on lost causes.
11. Most importantly promote healthy lifestyle among our lazy, fat, overindulgent society.

Medicine is like no other industry. Few people want the product until they are not in position to pay for it. Most diseases are indolent and tangible health detriment isn't evident until potentially irreversible damage has been done. Very little is "quick fix", and almost everything is expensive. Why would anyone think supply/demand would apply to such a market? What incentive do insurers have to provide care for those who cannot afford it - do you let people suffer/die because they lack $ to pay for insurance?

90% of the military ? That's a typo right ?

[Recliner Pilot]

90% of the military ? That's a typo right ?

We won't need healthcare if he gets that one. We will all be speaking Chinese.

His plan also relies on:

Raising taxes on the poor and middle class. Non-starter.
Making the poor pay a co-pay. They won't go for that.
Letting the rich purchase healthcare the poor can't get = Riots in the streets (see the Fleabagger Occutards)
Taking away people's Viagra. Jimmy Johnson's Johnson will be sad. Plus, there is a basic human right to a boner.
Eliminate drug reps? How do you propose DRs become educated on the new drugs developed? They won't do it on their own.
Revisit patent laws? I assume you mean eliminate patents on new drugs because it drives up the price. No new drugs would be developed if this is what you mean.
Pay all Drs the same? How Stalin-esque of you.
And finally: Death Panels.

So basically, your plan will end up putting the Govt in control of what you get, when you get it, how long you get it, and how much Drs get for providing it to you. Well, the Govt is so greta at running stuff I see no problem with this plan.

[Strike]

To fuel your derail, here's my plan:

1. Everyone needs to pay into a centralized, government-sponsored insurance. Wealthy people can supplement their care out-of-pocket. If private, "luxury" health insurance evolves, so be it.
2. Insurance should pay for an allocated number of routine visits, important meds (sorry, Viagra and Ambien) + catastrophic care - which kicks in after a certain $ value is exceeded. The rest is out-of-pocket.
3. Every visit needs a copay. Preventive care visits have reduced fees.
4. One set of rules should eliminate a lot of the coders/billers/admin required by a multifaceted insurance industry. A central EHR should eliminate a lot of the medical records personnel, too.
5. Tort reform to promote less defensive medicine. Should also reduce malpractice premiums, though this hasn't happened when reform has occurred. Establish a central medical panel to review validity of malpractice cases, toss the illegitimate claims early.
6. Somehow limit the "me too" drugs that pharma/device industry devotes too many resources developing, purely for financial reasons. Eliminate drug reps and advertising, too - the use of meds/devices should be based on need and affordability, in that order. (notice this flies in the face of free market economics). Might need to revisit the patent laws as well.
7. Teach the American public that waiting for noncritical tests/procedures is not tantamount to care rationing any more than basing their availability on ability to pay.
8. Doctors take a pay cut, particularly specialists. We need more primary care and the pay disparity is not justified.
9. Paying for all this can come from income tax, rather than placing the onus on employers. We can cut our military 90%, increase the retirement age for SS and eliminate all foreign aid to help with the bill. Plus up the sin taxes on tobacco, alcohol +/- fast food. And eliminate the Bush tax cuts.
10. Initiate meaningful end-of-life policies which mandate advance care directives and empower physicians in futile situations to stop wasting resources on lost causes.
11. Most importantly promote healthy lifestyle among our lazy, fat, overindulgent society.

Medicine is like no other industry. Few people want the product until they are not in position to pay for it. Most diseases are indolent and tangible health detriment isn't evident until potentially irreversible damage has been done. Very little is "quick fix", and almost everything is expensive. Why would anyone think supply/demand would apply to such a market? What incentive do insurers have to provide care for those who cannot afford it - do you let people suffer/die because they lack $ to pay for insurance?

I thought the idea was to control the spiraling costs?

[KSB2424]

I didn't see the clip. Did President Obama hold his nose up in the air and wave his finger like this while he was talking?

[Recliner Pilot]

Judge Nap weighs in on Obama warning the Supreme Court.

When it comes to the Constitution, the Obama administration can't lay a glove on the Supreme Court

By Judge Andrew P. Napolitano

Published April 03, 2012


Earlier this week, President Obama took a cheap shot at the Supreme Court by suggesting that because its members are “unelected” they are somehow without authority to invalidate unconstitutional legislation. This is hardly a sentiment that should come from anyone sworn to uphold the Constitution, much less a public servant who is a lawyer, much less a person who once taught constitutional law at one of the nation’s best law schools.

The whole purpose of a life-tenured, unelected, independent judiciary is to be anti-democratic; to preserve life, liberty, and property from the tyranny of the majority. Without such a judiciary, nothing but brute force would protect us from a Congress that recognized no limits on its authority.



Suppose that Congress, over the president’s veto, declared Joe Biden insane and removed him from office, or directed that Mrs. Obama lose custody of her children because she sent one of her daughters on a foreign trip without either parent, or that the First Amendment does not apply to those who hate the Chicago Cubs? Wouldn’t the president expect that “an unelected group of people” in black robes would interfere with those actions?

Has he actually forgotten that an unelected group of people overturned segregated schools which was the beginning of the end of Jim Crow laws, ordered the government to try or to free people it has arrested, prevented the prosecution of unpopular speech, invalidated the federal regulation of guns near schools, and ordered a president who thought he was above the law to turn over subpoenaed tapes to a federal district court?

The Supreme Court firmly established in Marbury v. Madison in 1803 that government behavior that is repugnant to the Constitution is not valid, and it is the duty of the courts to make that determination and to invalidate such behavior. This is called “judicial review:” It is the power of the courts to review the acts of the other branches of the federal government, and to review the laws of the states, and to void them when they exceed the confines of the Constitution. No serious legal scholar has questioned this power in the past 175 years.
The president is entitled to his own opinions, just like everyone else is. He is free to argue and to predict that ObamaCare should and will be upheld. But he cannot seriously suggest, with intellectual honesty, that the Court is without lawful authority to invalidate an act of Congress that the Court determines is repugnant to the Constitution.
Nor can he, with intellectual honesty, issue veiled threats to the Court.

The Court is his equal, as a branch of government. But since 1803, the Court is superior to the president on having the final say as to what the laws and what the Constitution mean; and the president knows that.

This Court, which has no army but does have a rich and unbroken tradition of commanding fidelity from the other branches of the government, cannot be intimidated by him. He can criticize it to his heart’s content; but he cannot lay a glove on the Supreme Court.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.c.../#ixzz1r5IrrjL2

[NewbieJr]

Read more: http://www.foxnews.c.../#ixzz1r5IrrjL2

LOLOL Fox News

[Recliner Pilot]

LOLOL Fox News

Quality posting.

[NewbieJr]

Quality posting.

Sorry. Just thinking about your life. Go back to scouring the conservative websites, blogs, and TV stations.

[jerryskids]

Quality posting.

I don't think Newbie's even trying anymore. MDC has gotten a lot better though; less flaming and more actual discussion.

[MDC]

I don't think Newbie's even trying anymore. MDC has gotten a lot better though; less flaming and more actual discussion.

Not that it gets my anywhere around here. Thanks for noticing though.

[NewbieJr]

I don't think Newbie's even trying anymore. MDC has gotten a lot better though; less flaming and more actual discussion.

Awwww, do you have sand in your vagina because I commented on the ridiculous amount of time you've been off work the last few years? I'm sorry Precious.

It's funny, though. I recall you being quite the asswhole when I was laid off and you still had your job. Quite comical how all that turned around.

[jerryskids]

Not that it gets my anywhere around here. Thanks for noticing though.

[jerryskids]

Awwww, do you have sand in your vagina because I commented on the ridiculous amount of time you've been off work the last few years? I'm sorry Precious.

It's funny, though. I recall you being quite the asswhole when I was laid off and you still had your job. Quite comical how all that turned around.

No, I've just observed that your posting has become so worthless that I wonder if you are even trying anymore. I suspect that if you went and checked your recent post history, you would see what I mean. I'm confident that others would agree that you have become by far the worst poster in political threads, if they were inclined to "jump ship" from their political ideology and state an objective opinion.

Regarding your job situation, I don't recall being a particular ass about it, although I might have given you a hard time for your attitude of milking the system while watching your daughter's soccer games.

[NewbieJr]

No, I've just observed that your posting has become so worthless that I wonder if you are even trying anymore. I suspect that if you went and checked your recent post history, you would see what I mean. I'm confident that others would agree that you have become by far the worst poster in political threads, if they were inclined to "jump ship" from their political ideology and state an objective opinion.

Regarding your job situation, I don't recall being a particular ass about it, although I might have given you a hard time for your attitude of milking the system while watching your daughter's soccer games.

Oh, you were a smug ass about it. Up until the time your sorry ass got fired. And then fired again. And I guarantee I didn't collect half of what you collected in the last two years. And I also never 'milked' anything.After being in the work force and contributing for 25_+ years, I used my unemployment as an opportunity to jump forward (which I did significantly) salary-wise instead of settling for some crappy job where I'd be criminally underpaid. By the way, Einstein, me turning down a crappy job offer means that the job went to someone else who may have needed it more than I. Either way, one person comes off of unemployment. The "system" suffers nill. hth BUt why am I explaining to you about unemployment compensation? No one knows more about it than you.

[jerryskids]

Oh, you were a smug ass about it. Up until the time your sorry ass got fired. And then fired again. And I guarantee I didn't collect half of what you collected in the last two years. And I also never 'milked' anything.After being in the work force and contributing for 25_+ years, I used my unemployment as an opportunity to jump forward (which I did significantly) salary-wise instead of settling for some crappy job where I'd be criminally underpaid. By the way, Einstein, me turning down a crappy job offer means that the job went to someone else who may have needed it more than I. Either way, one person comes off of unemployment. The "system" suffers nill. hth BUt why am I explaining to you about unemployment compensation? No one knows more about it than you.

It seems one of us has a burr up his ass about this topic.

I actually remember having good discussions with you on this topic. Whatever. The above is the most content you've posted in weeks. If being mad at me gets you back on the path of being a useful contributor to discussions, I'll take one for the team.

[Strike]

It seems one of us has a burr up his ass about this topic.

I actually remember having good discussions with you on this topic. Whatever. The above is the most content you've posted in weeks. If being mad at me gets you back on the path of being a useful contributor to discussions, I'll take one for the team.

LOL. If it was just you why is he being such a doosh in general?

[NewbieJr]

It seems one of us has a burr up his ass about this topic.

I actually remember having good discussions with you on this topic. Whatever. The above is the most content you've posted in weeks. If being mad at me gets you back on the path of being a useful contributor to discussions, I'll take one for the team.

I'm not 'mad' at you, Jerry. I find you to be a condescending ###### at times. When you're not wearing your 'holier-than-thou' cape, you're actually a poster I like.

[NewbieJr]

LOL. If it was just you why is he being such a doosh in general?

Oh boy. Here we go. Sorry I pressed you for an explanation on your idea in that thread the other day. You lillies have thin skin around here. If you get called out on something, you get a permanent bug up your ass.

[jerryskids]

I'm not 'mad' at you, Jerry. I find you to be a condescending ###### at times. When you're not wearing your 'holier-than-thou' cape, you're actually a poster I like.

How do I communicate to you that your posting has become insufferable without sounding like a doosh?

[drobeski]

Jerry, you're successful. People like newbie and Obama supporters in general are envious of that.....how dare you succeed while they fail miserably.
It's sad what our country has become and newbie is a glaring testiment to that fact.