Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Obama warns 'unelected' Supreme Court against striking down health law

page: 5
88
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 11:18 AM
link   
reply to post by AwakeinNM
 


presidential executive orders..

we need to get rid of them..

its way outta hand..

next that will be the only laws made..

by order.




posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 11:19 AM
link   
reply to post by macman
 


Please. I suppose you're just not truly comfortable with stating your point of view. "Let everyone who cannot pay die."



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 11:21 AM
link   
That is ALL this boils down to: should those who cannot afford to pay be left to die.

Everything else you people are saying is foreplay and beating around the bush. Your problem isn't with the constitutionality of the bill, or ELSE YOU WOULD PUT FORTH A VIALBLE ALTERNATIVE THAT PROVIDES CARE FOR THE POOR. But you, and your conservative leaders, will not, because the REAL point is:

"let the dirty welfare (insert bigotry of choice) die."



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 11:25 AM
link   
reply to post by LadyTwoCrowns
 


What's really so astounding is that the Obama bill is structured after an idea that came out of a Republican think tank and also the Romney plan in Massachusetts. And now conservative judges will tank it.


That the health and welfare of our citizens is being punted around like a football for political gain is so so sad.



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 11:26 AM
link   
And don't let my capitals or passion put you off. I'd love to put together a group of concerned citizens from both sides of the isle to figure out how to make sure that 1 in 5 Americans is not uninsured. I'd love to work with anyone to figure this out. Let the partisans fight and do nothing, but if you really aren't just greedy full of baloney heartless ****************** then let's work on something.

Or again, just come out of the closet and say you want the poor to die where YOU will get medical attention.



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by LadyTwoCrowns
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


No, sorry, I am not familiar with that particular article, only with the hundreds of people in an impoverished neighborhood. But I think the point of the bill is to spread the cost.

If your problem is not with providing insurance to the dying, and really with the "language" of the bill, then feel free to present a viable alternative that saves the lives of millions of impoverished Americans. Your other option is to admit you don't give a damn, which I think you would do if you examined self for a moment, or just came clean


There you go, since the both the law and the facts work against you just rely on the fallacy of argument from adverse consequences and pretend that has more weight than facts or law. I suppose you're not truly comfortable with stating your point of view. "To hell with people's rights, I would prefer to plunder!"



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 11:30 AM
link   
reply to post by AwakeinNM
 


I say strike it down, you can't make people buy health care, anymore than you can force people to eat what you want them to eat...



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 11:31 AM
link   
And then again, perhaps the reason why conservatives will not admit the truth, that they don't care if the poor die of curable diseases, is because they are TERRIFED that in that case, the best advice for the poor of this nation would be to revolt. After all, that would only be protecting their assets, right? If anything goes? If we can assign folks for death, why can't those assigned for death turn around and revolt against those who sentenced them?

I recently saw an article where mortgage holders were lamenting the "new morality" where homeowners felt no remorse about bailing on their mortgages. I laughed until I choked. Those on top have set the standard: all is fair in pursuit of profit, and there is no higher moral good than striving for profit. Even letting sick kicks die is not as important as protecting the right to make a profit. So why then would the rest of us be bad for adopting the same morality? ANYTHING FOR A PROFIT. Think on that for a while.



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 11:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by LadyTwoCrowns
reply to post by macman
 


Please. I suppose you're just not truly comfortable with stating your point of view. "Let everyone who cannot pay die."


Please, I beg you to show me where someone that can't pay for treatment is left to die..
PLEASE.....



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 11:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


What RIGHTS to you speak of, and who issues them? And who gives YOU the right to assign a dollar amount to people's lives? Sorry, my friend, but I will not allow my child to die because she met her "lifetime limit" of chemo. But apparently YOU are comfortable with that.

It's time for a new discussion on right and wrong. Your right to profit is NOT greater than my right to life. That would, in effect, MAKE YOU THE PLUNDERER, would it not? But I see you cannot respond to my question. Are you comfortable with your position, that those who cannot pay should die?



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 11:34 AM
link   
reply to post by macman
 


I suppose you have not heard of lifetime limits? I suppose you don't know the difference between going to the hospital with insurance or without? PLEASE. I don't buy it. You're just trying to make yourself feel better about your ghoulish profit-over-American-life position.



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 11:35 AM
link   
reply to post by The Old American
 




Marbury v. Madison established the SCOTUS as the supreme arbiter of what is or isn't constitutional. If Congress passes a law and the people believe it to be unconstitutional, they take it to lower federal court. If it is ruled constitutional, it's either stare decisis, or appealed to the state supreme court. If it is again ruled constitutional, and the complaintants want it reviewed, it can be heard by the SCOTUS. They have three judgements before them: stare decisis, overturn, or send back to the lower courts. The first two decisions are absolute. Now, the Senate and the President can remove a SCOTUS judge, but they have to impeach them, which is a lengthy process. But all three do, in absolute fact, share power, and each, in absolute fact, can check one another's power. You should learn.


You should learn? I find that comment a little condescending, don't you think? First of all, Hamilton wrote, in Federalist 78, "The judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them. The Executive not only dispenses the honors, but holds the sword of the community. The legislature not only commands the purse, but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated. The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever...
It proves incontestably, that the judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power; that it can never attack with success either of the other two."

It can never attack either of the other two...and like I said, it's not in the Constitution. We don't have kings in America and it's time to challenge the doctrine of Judicial Review, the claim by the Court itself that it has that power.
The power of We The People should be with the People and their elected officials, not 5 lawyers who have claimed the right to rule over every other branch of government.



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 11:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


My opinion is trying to determine what's going to be the best for America.

You can't tell me there aren't any parallels between the Sick and Disabled Seaman Act and PPACA.

edit on 3-4-2012 by jlv70 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 11:36 AM
link   
Will be back later. LOL, maybe a conservative will have put forth a good alternative to Obamacare, where EVERYONE GETS TO SEE A DOCTOR and have equal treatment, because MONEY IS NOT GOD. I won't hold my breath, though. You all are more heartless than the crack dealers on the corner.



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 11:36 AM
link   
reply to post by LadyTwoCrowns
 


AGAIN, please provide me with proof that someone has not received treatment due to not being able to pay, or not having health insurance.

I suspect you will evade the question again, and babble on about how unfair one thing is, or that all Conservatives are the evil spawn of Satan himself.



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 11:37 AM
link   
reply to post by LadyTwoCrowns
 


That's right, everyone knows that Democrats love the poor, which is why they keep making so many of them. The truth is both Republicans and Democrats have conspired to expand the poverty base, but keep jerking that knee and screaming histrionically while patting yourself on the back in the pretense your someone who truly cares for others.

You earlier pretended that you were open to a genuine debate but disingenuously insisted it had to be a debate over insurance policies instead of actual health care. If you want to consider the notion that this nation can have an effective health care system without insurance schemes, that is a debate I would gladly join in.



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 11:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Majiq1

Originally posted by cconn487
Unelected Congress. Because our election process for POTUS sure is and has always been fair and balanced.

I wanna hate on Obama so much, but the only reason we aren't at war with Iran right now is because he wants to let sanctions run their course. Thats the only thing I really commend him on as another war is ridiculous.
edit on 2-4-2012 by cconn487 because: (no reason given)


You do understand that the only reason he hasn't had us storming into Iran is because there is an election coming up right? It has nothing to do with sanctions or diplomacy.


No doubt. Who in their right mind thinks Obama is any less of a warmonger than his predecessor? As I recall, we took military action in Libya without congressional approval, right? How is that any different than the Bush Administration garnering congressional approval...but under false pretenses?

The fundamental rules of ALL Constitutional, Federal, State, County, Municipal, civil, criminal, and even common law hinge upon all parties to an agreement dealing with one another fairly and honestly. Granted, different states may have subtle nuances in the interpretations of this idea...but the crux of this idea is the same.

In other words, if I were to compel an individual's authorization or endorsement of a particular action, order, contract, transaction, etc under knowingly false pretenses it not only opens me up to possible criminal charges...it also renders the action, order, contract, or transaction null and void.

Thus...given the Bush Administration's open acknowledgement that the intelligence information used to invade Iraq had KNOWINGLY not been vetted properly prior to Colin Powell's sales pitch on national TV, in affect and effect CONGRESS DIDN'T EVER VOTE IN FAVOR OF MILITARY ACTION IN IRAQ.

So is one REALLY better than the other?

Same difference. We will be invading Iran either shortly before or shortly after the 2012 November election...the only REAL question is what the polls show going into October. If the Republican party remains shattered and Ron Paul can't gain enough traction as an Independent/Libertarian/Green and the pollsters are showing Obama with a 5% lead over the Republicans and/or The Ron Paul Wildcard we will be invading Iran no later than March/April of 2013...quite possibly as sooner. Although, in fairness I think Obama would be cautious enough to wait until after the first of the year to put a little distance between the election and another invasion so as not to open himself up to as many election fraud allegations. Plus...it's bad PR to ship out all those military guys the week before Xmas. Note...I don't think that this is due to any particular concern for the families of military personnel...it's just shrewd politics.

If Obama's is going into October with a number showing a greater than 5% deficit, I think we will have a very special "October Surprise" this year that puts the whole Trillion Dollar Bailout of the Bush Administration to shame. Nothing like starting WWIII to get Americans to stop using rational thought and vote fear instead...or simply suspend the election because of "National Emergency" or whatever.

However, I personally think the "most likely" scenario will be a 40/40/10 split between Obama, Romney, and Ron Paul (sadly). In this scenario, Obama WON'T invade in October and Mitt "wins" the election (via election fraud if necessary).

This will enable TPTB to then ALSO invade Iran in Q1 of 2013 whilst SIMULTANEOUSLY perpetuating this myth that the Dems are "soft on terror" or whatever for the right and reinforcing the idea that the GOP is a bunch of "warmongers" on the left...thus keeping the country perpetually divided upon a set of scripted political ideologies, rhetoric, and dogma that deep down every American already knows is utter bullsh#*% for at least another election cycle or two.

It's scary to me that so many other people can see through this transparent scam as well.

WISE UP!! THERE ARE NO "GOOD GUYS"!! NOBODY IS ON "YOUR" SIDE AND THE BLUE TEAM IS NO BETTER THAN THE RED TEAM. THE ONLY THING THAT'S DIFFERENT IS THE FLEXIBLE PACKAGING THAT THE PRODUCT COMES DELIVERED IN!!!!!!!!!!!

Oh...and vote RON PAUL. The fact that his own political party hates him is the greatest endorsement of all.



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by LadyTwoCrowns
Will be back later. LOL, maybe a conservative will have put forth a good alternative


Please, on your break, maybe research just a tiny bit and you will find alternatives proposed by Conservatives and republicans. Or, just bury your head in the sand, with a Road Runner Style sign stating "Conservatives want you to die!!!!!"





Originally posted by LadyTwoCrownswhere EVERYONE GETS TO SEE A DOCTOR and have equal treatment,

I believe the law was passed during the Reagan Years, stating that people can't be denied treatment. Hand back into the sand for you.




Originally posted by LadyTwoCrowns
because MONEY IS NOT GOD. I won't hold my breath, though.

Make those evil doctors treat people for free then.



Originally posted by LadyTwoCrowns
You all are more heartless than the crack dealers on the corner.

Oh boo hoo.



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 11:42 AM
link   
All he has to do is threaten to take away their seats in the underground safe bases (D.U.M.B.S). He's a smart guy and knows how to control even the elites if he has to.



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by jlv70
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


My opinion is trying to determine what's going to be the best for America.

You can't tell me there aren't any parallels between the Sick and Disabled Seaman Act and PPACA.

edit on 3-4-2012 by jlv70 because: (no reason given)


That is precisely what I am telling you, but hey I actually read the 1798 Act, and I also read the article written by the Harvard Law Professor that main stream media is now parroting. This law professor couldn't find a parallel with that act alone and had to turn to an early act mandating the purchases of firearms to make anything near a parallel, but hey while you're pretending to determine what's going to be best for America, there are actually members in this site that actually do the work and research towards that end.






top topics



 
88
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join


Help ATS Recover with your Donation.
read more: Help ATS Recover With Your Contribution