20% of new Obamacare Waivers are restaurants, nightclubs, fancy hotels in Pelosi’s District!

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by nenothtu

 

If no law is breached, there is no reason to make a decision. If no new law is made, there is nothing to determine a breach OF. Therefore, I stand by my original statement. They are not mutually exclusive.

LOL...so the SCOTUS only hears cases when they already know a law has been breached????

Come on...that is weak...just give it up.

A law must be made before any determination of it's Constitutionality can be made. How would they determine the applicability of one that has NOT been made?

Originally posted by Janky Red

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by Janky Red

 

You argue from both sides of the fence.
The issue of Corporations is not part of this issue, yet you use it as a stepping stone.
The application of Case Law is as Progressive as it gets.
You seem to argue for Case Law and condemn it all at once.
Your statement that the SCOTUS only hears cases that have been sent up is a matter of semantics.
The Judicial branch is to determine if a law was broken and if a proposed law is constitutional.
Seems to me that it is working its way up the chain, and by all rights and definition will be deemed unlawful.
And no amount of twisting and turning or holding up the Commerce Claus in defense will make it constitutional.

edit on 18-5-2011 by macman because: (no reason given)

The corporation is part of the issue when you look at what spurred the desire to address healthcare itself.
The O'Romney approach was a misguided attempt to make a basic thing such as treatment available
to people. The corporation enters the discussion when you observe the current paradigm and only viable to ensure an American can get access to a doctor and not be bankrupted when life takes its toll. The practice of
rescinding legal contracts after a contract was executed is above all notions of law, this is also a reason
for attempting to address the healthcare situation, this was also due to corporate dominance.

The application of case law precedence, Stare Decisis, was developed long before the progressive movement ever existed, it also predated MARX and the Beatles if that makes you feel better. The state of the corporate humanity can be attributed to the people who exalt and defend industry endlessly, hardly modern a progressive attribute, of commie business haters, no?

You have your idea of the Supreme court slightly off... The active role of the SCOTUS is to be the ultimate decision after matters are appealed, the law is not proposed at the time, it is already in practice and applied.
Parties are then arguing the application of a ruling based upon said law... It is a minutia, but it does make a difference conceptually.

I don't think the health care mandate is constitutional, but I don't think contractual recision is either.

I think anyone that cares about the constitution and Americans can see both sides of the fence, a fence always has two sides.

edit on 18-5-2011 by Janky Red because: (no reason given)

I am impressed. Someone with either alot of training/education and/or ability to research. Providing facts, with some opinion mixed in.
Ok, so yes, Stare Decisis was created many moons before the Progressive movement came to be. But, you are referencing its creation outside the US, rather then in. progressive ideas had taken hold before the application in the US courts.
The SCOTUS is not supposed to be active, be design. The attitude of case law has brought the activist judge from birth to current form.
While yes, the SCOTUS is in place for the finalized laws, it does also hear cases on the personal level. So do lower courts. The courts are segmented into different variations, so we are both correct.
Should a company/corporation be allowed to contribute to political parties and such? That is another time and place. But, I do understand your reasoning for bringing this up.
As for contractual recession? If the contract is determined to be void or its creation not valid, then it is to be taken apart and placed to the curb.
But, it is widely know that both parties, and opposite branches will convene with the other in these matters. Does this mean that once insight is gleaned that those asking will heed the info given? Nope. That has been shown throughout history.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher

it is perfectly fine to call it a "living document".

Um...no? Its not fine. Those who wish to call it a " living document" like to do so, so that they can " interpret " what they can to suit there argument. Much you are doing now. Your continued argument suggests the idea is associated with views that contemporaneous society should be taken into account when interpreting key constitutional phrases.

In other words, you pick out what you deem fitting for your argument, and interpret that as such. Which is not what the framers intended.

Thomas Jefferson wrote:

"I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."

He went on to say:

But he also warned against treating the Constitution as "a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist, and shape into any form they please."[14] Jefferson's understanding of how the Constitution should be interpreted is made clear in a letter he wrote March 27, 1801, after assuming the Presidency, "The Constitution on which our union rests, shall be administered by me according to the safe and honest meaning contemplated by the plain understanding of the people of the United States, at the time of its adoption,—a meaning to be found in the explanations of those who advocated (it)...These explanations are preserved in the publications of the time, and are too recent in the memories of most men to admit of question."

en.wikipedia.org...

A living document by mere definition:

a living document is “a document which may be continually edited and updated by either a limited or unrestricted group”.

Which is direct contradiction to your argument. We have this little thing called an Amendment process. The founders put that stipulation within the Constitution so that " it " couldn't be edited and updated randomly and without provocation.

Here's a history lesson:

Article V:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

www.usconstitution.net...

No where under Article 1 section 8 of the Constitution, does it empower government to dictate what a business owner must provide for its employees. Its not the job of Congress to implement such things. You constantly misunderstand at the very least, what SCOTUS is about, much less what they represent.

The Constitution was adopted by the Constitutional Convention in 1787 as the ultimate law of the US. The Supreme Court, during the infancy of the US, established a pattern whereby the Court could interpret the laws set out in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights as they saw fit. It’s kind of what started the whole appointing Justices based on political party and personal views thing - of course they are going to interpret the Constitution based on their personal beliefs, no matter what anyone says.

Which is what clearly, you are doing. You are trying to " sell " the readers of this thread, of your interpretation.

Which is clearly misguided.

reply to post by Realms


Love it when facts are presented to blow crap out of the water.
Sadly, it will fall not on deaf ears, but covered ears and eyes. Yet the mouth keeps moving.

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by Realms

 

Love it when facts are presented to blow crap out of the water.
Sadly, it will fall not on deaf ears, but covered ears and eyes. Yet the mouth keeps moving.

Well of course, those libs/progressives/democrats, will always avoid fact, but rather question it, then put there spin on it in order to suit there needs. Like a broken record, spinning the same arguments, and regurgitating what they heard on the MSM outlets....comical really, and sad at the same time.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher

If that is true...why did the original document include the SCOTUS in it...with the purpose of ruling on if laws are Constitutional???

Just wanted to re-quote that before you realized you'd said it...

Ok.....

And....

That right there refutes the "living document" argument. It states plainly that laws are to be measured against the Constitution, NOT that the Constitution is to be warped or "interpreted" to fit the new laws.

Are you un-puzzled now that I've spelled it out and held your hand through it?

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


just because the government does something that is against the constitution doesn't make it legal after the fact. it is currently not in the power of the u.s. government to do this under the constitution, yet they did it. they all broke their oaths of office, and the only way to fix the problem is to get rid of everyone in all political offices, and put in honest, hard working americans who don't have connections to big corporations. people with a backbone.

they are traitors to america. both legally and morally. sellouts.

Originally posted by spyder550
Can any of you tell me what the waiver is and is it permanent??

I think spyder550 below is answering the question.

>> I'm not positive myself what the Waiver is -- or what the OP is talking about. There seems to be some reflexive disgust at Pelosi, Obama and "socialized medicine" -- as if that's all that needs to be said.

Pelosi got 20% of the waivers! Is that actually socialism, or is that a crooked politician, or is it PERHAPS, someone who is more actively engaged in the policies and educating their constituents? I have no idea.

But the vast majority of these comments -- like the ones about Obama's birth place, sound like rants from children. I cannot make heads or tails of the comments UNLESS, I backtrack them to whatever site is the main astro-turf source, or maybe check in with what someone like Sean Hannity is saying -- then, using the "talking points" I can reverse engineer what the actual situation is.

But that is a HUGE WASTE OF TIME.

>> Mainly, because my wife and I don't have health care -- and she just god finished with Cancer treatments and the insurance company that hired me closed my position, so they could hire on someone cheaper (who quit, almost immediately).

In my field, it takes a bit of time to find the RIGHT JOB, as it's technical and creative -- but the main issue I've got is benefits -- namely NOT HAVING ANY.

Do these "waivers" allow for a small company to give someone like me enough benefits so that their loved ones don't have to die, or try to find a hospital who will treat someone with no money? If so; then what is the DAMAGE that someone is taking advantage of them? Ultimately, it's someone with HEALTH CARE, not dying on the streets -- it is NOT the luxury of whatever the price of the steak is at that fancy "elitist" restaurant that got a waiver.


>> What the Hell does Elitist even mean? Every one of the dear "leaders" who was against Obamacare was ALSO one of the elite and I can guarantee you; NONE OF YOU ARE WELCOME at their Country Club. 90% of the Medicare fraud is from BIG COMPANIES -- you know like the one Bill Frist owns.

And personally, I could really do with a bit of Socialism right about now. You want to make me a citizen of the Dutch tomorrow? I'd go for that in a heartbeat. If I become a Billionaire, maybe then I might get upset about a 56% tax rate -- but right now, I pay a LOT MORE than 56% of my earnings covering education, healthcare and all the "necessities" of life.



>> But again; the rants on this topic make very little sense -- and I don't like Pelosi either; mainly because she is is cozy with DEFENSE CONTRACTORS -- but you wouldn't know that with all the fear of "socialized" this or that. The ONLY socialism going on these days is the one that gets BP $4 Billion a year in handouts.

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by OutKast Searcher

 

Nice, you actually answered a question.
No, you are wrong. We the people are the holders of it. Not the Govt. That is why it was designed for anyone to read and understand. There is supposed to be Judicial restraint applied, not activist on the benches viewing each case compared to foreign law, case law and the like. The Judges life should be very simple. Does it go against the law and/or Constitution? In this case, with Obamacare, yes it goes against both.

What you pitch is Rule of Man, as man is the Judges.

You are entitled to your opinion.

Luckily, your opinion holds no weight.


Be my guest...you go ahead and go against a SCOTUS ruling, claiming you KNOW what the Constitution really meant....let me know how that turns out for you.

reply to post by nenothtu


To the extent that it bears on MY life, it is correct and absolute.

Well, that is a very ignorant way to live your life. Only your opinion is valid, that is really all I need to know about you. :shk:

The unconstitutional and illegal part of all this is the individual mandate. You can do as you please, as long as I'm not required to participate in the scheme in any form, and against my will. Slavery was allegedly abolished with the Emancipation Proclamation.

Do you pay into social security? Medicare? Unemployment insurance?

reply to post by spyder550


the entire state of navada is exempt!!!
this group here is, that group there is...and over here.....
kind of like the fed income tax, start out with demanding more than the people can conceivably give, and then well, since that ain't gonna work, give some of it back, if they have kids, if they have a business, if they buy a house, if, if, if.......
the healthcare system in general, charges more than anyone could have to pay, and well, come up with all these neat little scams, insurance, medicaid, medicare, ect.....and well, if all else fails, there's charity care, or just plain writeoffs.....
got to tell ya, life can be a bitch if you don't find yourself in one of those "special" groups, able to take advantage of the tax breaks, have decent insurance, or medicaid, or medicare, ect......
and soon, well, you can add, have a waiver with that!!
or are you so nieve that you believe that every one that needs healthcare, actually gets it, that there isn't any people in this country that are finding the gov't is taking so much money that they are going hungry, or homeless, and that their wont be businesses that will need these waivers, but won't fall into that small segment that the gov't feels deserves them....and are you actually that nieve to believe that all those politicians that are gonna come and go aren't gonna screw with what defines that small segment this way and that, just to strenthen a business, or a business sector, or just one or more of their buddies???

reply to post by OutKast Searcher

Do you pay into social security? Medicare? Unemployment insurance?

Do you have a choice in the matter? Is there an opt out program I don't know about?

reply to post by Realms

Um...no? Its not fine. Those who wish to call it a " living document" like to do so, so that they can " interpret " what they can to suit there argument. Much you are doing now. Your continued argument suggests the idea is associated with views that contemporaneous society should be taken into account when interpreting key constitutional phrases.

In other words, you pick out what you deem fitting for your argument, and interpret that as such. Which is not what the framers intended.

Seems like you are "interpreting" what the framers intended...lol.

Like it or not...the Constitution is continuously interpreted...and the SCOTUS has the final say on that interpretation.

You can cry about it all you want and live in your fantasy world....but in reality....the Constitution is a living document.


I am not one that worships the founders as if they were Gods. The founders had an agenda, just like anyone has an agenda. Some like to romanticize it...they were all about "freedom"...but it was more about money than freedom. England cutting into their profits...can't let that happen. And I guess freedom for all stopped with the slaves they had working their plantations.

So you can quote an old dead guy all you want....I could care less. I live in the present...not the past where things were vastly different than they are today. These are men who talked of freedom while owning slaves...you worship the hypocrites...the rest of us will work on correcting their mistakes.

Which is direct contradiction to your argument. We have this little thing called an Amendment process. The founders put that stipulation within the Constitution so that " it " couldn't be edited and updated randomly and without provocation.

There is no need for an amendment when the justification for the law is already existing.

The Constitution was adopted by the Constitutional Convention in 1787 as the ultimate law of the US. The Supreme Court, during the infancy of the US, established a pattern whereby the Court could interpret the laws set out in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights as they saw fit. It’s kind of what started the whole appointing Justices based on political party and personal views thing - of course they are going to interpret the Constitution based on their personal beliefs, no matter what anyone says.

The SCOTUS will rule on if the Commerce Clause is used in a justifiable way for the Health Care Reform Bill. I am 100% fine abiding by their ruling.

It appears that you and others are not. You are already admitting that you won't abide by the process set out in our Constitution (the one you are so passionately defending), unless that ruling goes your own way.

How patriotic of you...as long as the process works out in a way you agree with...it is working just fine. Otherwise, it is corrupt. How about you just wait for th SCOTUS ruling and abide by the Constitution? That's what I'm going to do.

Which is what clearly, you are doing. You are trying to " sell " the readers of this thread, of your interpretation.

Which is clearly misguided.

I agree with the interpretation that was used to justify the passing of the health care law. Obviously you don't.

I am willing to let the SCOTUS decide, and abide by that ruling.

Simple question....are you?

reply to post by nenothtu

That right there refutes the "living document" argument. It states plainly that laws are to be measured against the Constitution, NOT that the Constitution is to be warped or "interpreted" to fit the new laws.

Are you un-puzzled now that I've spelled it out and held your hand through it?

Ummm...no.

You give any written document to 10 people...and then see if they all "interpret" it the same way.

You can tell from this thread and others...many people have disagreements as to what certain parts of the Constitution is saying.

That is the purpose of the SCOTUS...to have the final INTERPRETATION.

This is basic stuff.

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by OutKast Searcher

 

just because the government does something that is against the constitution doesn't make it legal after the fact. it is currently not in the power of the u.s. government to do this under the constitution, yet they did it. they all broke their oaths of office, and the only way to fix the problem is to get rid of everyone in all political offices, and put in honest, hard working americans who don't have connections to big corporations. people with a backbone.

they are traitors to america. both legally and morally. sellouts.

I defer to the SCOTUS to make that decision.

I apologize if I don't hold your opinion credible.


I'll ask you the exact same thing...will you accept the SCOTUS ruling on the law?

reply to post by dawnstar

the entire state of navada is exempt!!!

Please...answer one very simple question.


What exactly are they "exempt" from?

Take your time...go look it up.

Originally posted by Realms
reply to post by OutKast Searcher

 

Do you pay into social security? Medicare? Unemployment insurance?

Do you have a choice in the matter? Is there an opt out program I don't know about?

No...you don't.

You must be outraged.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher

The Health and Human Services Department announced late Friday that Nevada had secured a statewide waiver from certain implementation requirements of the Obama administration’s health care law, because forcing them through, the department found, “may lead to the destabilization of the individual market.” The announcement makes Nevada one of only three states to have compliance requirements under the health care bill waived. Nevada’s Insurance Division had appealed to the feds to reduce the federal requirement that health plans serving people who buy insurance on their own must spend at least 80 percent of the money they collect on medical expenses. Under the national rule, companies that don’t spend that percentage of revenue on medical costs have to cut policyholders rebate checks starting this year. Nevada asked that requirement be reduced to 72 percent for one year, arguing that top insurance providers would be so strapped to make the payments that they’d exit the state market. Health and Human Services didn’t fully buy that argument, but did agree to reduce the requirement to 75 percent for a year, expressing concern about what might happen to people with policies from insurers Golden Rule and Aetna if they didn’t. Together, Golden Rule and Aetna cover 24 percent of Nevada’s insured; but they, along with Sierra Health and MEGA, which cover another 4 percent, are spending nowhere near 80 percent of revenue on health care coverage.
www.lasvegassun.com...

so, why is navada so different that there's no way that they could possibly spend 80 percent of their revenue on healthcare but, companies in other states can???
more than likely, companies in every state don't think they can spend that much of their revenues on the actual healthcare for their policy holders....I bet is you want to every health insurance company in the country and asked them, well, you would find very few willing to say that they could!!
while at the same time, if the truth be known, they probably ALL can, it would just require that the upper management take a paycut and lose a few of those hundred dollar or million dollar bonuses!

a well written law would not require all these exceptions to the rules or leave giant voids where chaos is free to rule! the fact that so many of the laws in this country do just that kind of tells me that either the ones writing the laws are idiots, or they are acting with motives outside of what is best for this country, or they are just playing with stuff they shouldn't be playing with!!!
in this case, I think it is the latter. the states have jurisdiction as far as how their insurance companies operate, not the federal gov't. so well, there is no cookie cutter solution that will fit every state, add to that the fact that the other two posibilites are also a good possibility, well, the law should be revoked!!!

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by nenothtu

 

To the extent that it bears on MY life, it is correct and absolute.

Well, that is a very ignorant way to live your life. Only your opinion is valid, that is really all I need to know about you. :shk:

Yup, that actually IS all you need to know about me - I won't allow you or anyone else to call my shots for me. It must be galling. Just for grins and giggles, can you articulate why you think your opinion should rule my life more so than my own?

The unconstitutional and illegal part of all this is the individual mandate. You can do as you please, as long as I'm not required to participate in the scheme in any form, and against my will. Slavery was allegedly abolished with the Emancipation Proclamation.

Do you pay into social security? Medicare? Unemployment insurance?

I've already stated in this thread that I do, and furthermore that I will never live long enough to realize any benefits from them. Now your sort want to pile on ANOTHER useless tax. How much theft is enough for you? One has to draw the line somewhere, and this, which is steamrolling along on MY watch (as opposed to the other thefts you bring up, which were not) is where I draw that line.

Ain't ya sort of glad that I won't live long enough to collect?

I have never been able to afford health insurance in my life.... And even I know this obamacare is a disaster waiting to happen. I understand one of the main reasons why the medical and health insurance prices are so high. Government interference. All these interferences, that seem great on paper, end up screwing things up way worse than they were before. Pretty soon you will have one choice when it comes to healthcare. Be on the only insurance left, government run, or be rich and pay in cash the full ammount upfront. That will be the only options, if this trainwreck waiting to happen is allowed to go through.

Come live in canada a few years, then tell everyone government run healthcare is great. Yeah it's great maybe if you are rich and can go the the US hospitals to bypass the waiting periods to see specialists. Or if you never get sick enough to see a specialist...