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

Originally posted by LadyTwoCrowns
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.

I'm not in the USA but howabout if you stopped bombing the # out of the brown people in the world and being the 'democracy' spreading war mongering policeman?

Would that not pay for some of it? Or is that too simple?

reply to post by LadyTwoCrowns

What RIGHTS to you speak of, and who issues them?

I am speaking of unalienable rights which cannot be issued by any human and preexist government, but thanks for revealing your profound disregard for those rights. It puts a better perspective on your pretense of caring for others.

One thing that America can be certain of is that the POTUS does have at least three empty skirts under his thumb. These three are absolutely yellow dog Socialists and Barry is their boss. I believe that Barry knows, as we speak, just how this went down. No doubt in my mind. The same as the senate. Before the bill hits the floor you know what this senate will do. The congress is irrelevant any more. The senate is the ace in the deck and the SCOTUS is the wrapper on the candy. The congress is actually of no help in the freedom of the people such as it was years ago because the senate always overrides the wishes of the people. It has now become a legal MAFIA. The only way I can see to help the American people is to get rid of the DC gangsters and the military strangle hold on the government and put it back under the states rights. The senate should be dismantled and the SPOTUS should have term limits in a elective form.

Originally posted by LadyTwoCrowns

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

I AM "the poor". I laughed out loud at your "two car" reference - I have NONE. Whereas you claim to be "working in the ghetto", I LIVE here. I WILL die, as will we all. None can beat the Reaper, and I don't care how much money you give the corporate insurance cronies of Obama to stave it off. We WILL die. ALL of us, rich and poor alike.

I WILL NOT participate in you insurance lotto - that ponzi scheme devised to make a few much richer and all of the rest of us poorer. You do what you want, but realize you have not the right to force ME to do it, too.

I will not comply. I will not go along quietly.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


The parallels are obvious and it doesn't take a Harvard law professor to see them.

Obama's a Harvard law professor too.

Originally posted by jlv70
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

The parallels are obvious and it doesn't take a Harvard law professor to see them.

Obama's a Harvard law professor too.

Instead of reifying why not rise up to the challenge offered you and actually cite the 1798 Act and parallel it to the 2,700 page Act before the Court now and show us these obvious parallels...or keep pretending all you have to do is reify and declare the parallels are there and you don't have to offer up any substantive proof, just simply pretend anyone that cannot see them is not as bright as you. Surely some in this site will buy that.

Originally posted by LadyTwoCrowns
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.

I am a STRONG proponent of socialized medicine. However...I am ABSOLUTELY AGAINST Obamacare. The plan itself is idiotic.

Any overhaul of the medical care system which DOES NOT address the McCarran-Ferguson Act of 1945 is beyond incoherent.

In 1944 the Supreme Court ruled that insurance companies of ALL kinds (not just medical care) can be regulated by the Federal Government via the Interstate Commerce clause in the Constitution, given that an insurance company is normally a national (or MULTI-NATIONAL) for profit corporation which takes premiums in one state and then as a matter of course invests them in securities of all types across state and even national lines. Thus insurance companies are not bound by any Federal regulatory efforts and are EXEMPT from all anti-trust laws.

...So a year later Congress passes McCarran-Ferguson Act of 1945, exempting insurance companies from this Supreme Court decision in defiance of BOTH the Supreme Court AND the Constitution.

A good deal of the problems start to fix themselves when insurance companies must compete with one another across state lines and are prevented from acting in collusion with one another as a monopoly, quasi-monopoly, or trust.

Once we get rid of this legislative abomination, I'm all in favor of resuming the National Health Care debate as I STRONGLY believe that a well-executed and OPTIONAL Federal Health Care Insurance program is a MUST for any civilized nation.

...however the plan as it's proposed is a joke. Worst of all...BECAUSE it's doomed to fail, it will just add fuel to the fire for all those people who ACTUALLY think that we should be turning poor people out into the street to die and you won't see the debate surface in the US again for generations.

Contrary to popular opinion...you CAN support socialized medicine and STILL be against Obamacare.

I certainly am.

Originally posted by macman
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.

45,000 deaths annually from lack of insurance so take your pick:

news.harvard.edu...

Originally posted by LadyTwoCrowns
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.

I know this is not directed at me but I feel the need to chime in here to make the point that healthcare is not a human right unless you have the skills and materials handy to provide it for yourself. You only have the right to what you can hunt, gather or trade - that has never changed.

I am curious where the idea that I must provide a portion of my earnings, be that in cash, services or goods to another person for their use without my consent as a human right? Where did my rights end and the other person's become a priority?

Where does this human right come from; in the case of an absent government (the natural state of being a human) I think you would be hard pressed to demand anything from anyone as a human right. Go to a country without a government and say it's your human right to have anything see how far you get.

Taking something from someone by force; be that force the point of a gun or the force of law and giving it to another is theft with a fancy name...

This is a silly argument; healthcare is no more a human right than the right to food shelter or clothing.

If you need something you must either be able to provide it for yourself or have something of value to trade for it.

What if we don't have enough Doctors can the government order certain individuals to become doctors so that people can have this human right.... Will they force them to work at the point of a gun so you can enjoy your right to life?

In any instance absent force of law or another from one has no right to anything he/she does not produce/earn or trade for their own labor or assets.

Again; please show me where or justify why I am required to relinquish the fruits of my labor for the benefit of another is a human right?

I might well do so out of charity - but to take it from me by force...I'm not so cool with that.

Originally posted by LadyTwoCrownsAre you comfortable with your position, that those who cannot pay should die?

I think you would find that charitable organizations, hospitals and doctors would provide for the needs of the truly indigent with little need for government intervention.

Finally, to use your specific example of a child needing chemo; your own and your child’s "right" to life stops the minute you reach for someone else's wallet to fund it no one else has the obligation to pay for the treatment of another regardless of the perceived "need" of the patient nor the perceived "wealth" of those from whom the money be demanded.

Welcome to life - it’s cruel and unfair.

What he actually said is that the Supreme court would be taking an "unprecedented" step in overturning a law that was voted on and approved by a majority of elected officials in Congress.

This is not true. Supreme Court has overturned several Acts of Congress in the past. This would hardly be "unprecedented" if this were to be overturned.

Originally posted by stanats

Originally posted by macman
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.

45,000 deaths annually from lack of insurance so take your pick:

news.harvard.edu...

The GOP has a better record than Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and all the mooslims combined at killing Americans, including the year 2001

reply to post by stanats

45,000 deaths annually from lack of insurance so take your pick:

It would be more accurate to assert that 45,000 deaths occur annually from lack of affordable health care, but whose really interested in accuracy when it comes to legal plunder?

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by LadyTwoCrowns

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

I AM "the poor". I laughed out loud at your "two car" reference - I have NONE. Whereas you claim to be "working in the ghetto", I LIVE here. I WILL die, as will we all. None can beat the Reaper, and I don't care how much money you give the corporate insurance cronies of Obama to stave it off. We WILL die. ALL of us, rich and poor alike.

I WILL NOT participate in you insurance lotto - that ponzi scheme devised to make a few much richer and all of the rest of us poorer. You do what you want, but realize you have not the right to force ME to do it, too.

I will not comply. I will not go along quietly.

If you won't get health insurance, I really, really hope that you don't get sick and have to sell your house to cover your hospital stay.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by stanats

 

45,000 deaths annually from lack of insurance so take your pick:

It would be more accurate to assert that 45,000 deaths occur annually from lack of affordable health care, but whose really interested in accuracy when it comes to legal plunder?

You're right, let's not nitpick about 45,000 dead Americans when the 2012 Presidency is at stake.

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by LadyTwoCrowns

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

I AM "the poor". I laughed out loud at your "two car" reference - I have NONE. Whereas you claim to be "working in the ghetto", I LIVE here. I WILL die, as will we all. None can beat the Reaper, and I don't care how much money you give the corporate insurance cronies of Obama to stave it off. We WILL die. ALL of us, rich and poor alike.

I WILL NOT participate in you insurance lotto - that ponzi scheme devised to make a few much richer and all of the rest of us poorer. You do what you want, but realize you have not the right to force ME to do it, too.

I will not comply. I will not go along quietly.

As a STRONG proponent of socialized medicine, but ironically one who is ALSO strongly against Obamacare... I say "Good for you". Civil Disobedience is the heart of the democratically inspired American republic. Personally...I wish we had a WHOLE LOT MORE disobedience these days across a WIDE RANGE of issues.

History tells us that in the aftermath of all the really bad atrocities we monkey's willfully participate in that there are a SHOCKING number of perpetrators who claim they "were just following orders" in the aftermath.

While we are it...somebody should tell our damn cops to stop attacking peaceful demonstrators with chemical weapons that the US has agreed not to even use on foreign enemies during times of open and unadulterated warfare and we should remind the military that they don't have to do a DAMN THING that they think is wrong.

The world would be a much better place if we were so willing to simply follow orders so blindly.

Props to you, my friend.

reply to post by stanats


Did these people seek treatment?

The study uses the factors of a persons income, social status and then relates it to death numbers. Not really a true snapshot of the false title.

The study showed there is a higher level of lower class people that died, then as opposed to middle to upper class.
While it looks good on the waterline, it does not prove anything but 2 facts:
1. Statistics can be shaped to a mold for anything.
2. Poor people, or people without health insurance have a slightly higher rate of death



So what. 45000 people are not near a percent of a percent, and are no where close to providing cause to force every US Citizen to purchase Health Care, which is not a guarantee in any way of prolonging life.

It doesn't state the process in any clear form either.
Where is the actual case study?

reply to post by YouAreLiedTo


Your history is a bit off. Baby George was certainly King of the Signing Statement, but Clinton had quite a few sigstates. Remember "Stroke of the pen, law of the land. Pretty Cool"?

reply to post by stanats

You're right, let's not nitpick about 45,000 dead Americans when the 2012 Presidency is at stake.

Sure, let's pretend that creating a mandate that will enrich insurance companies is the same as fixing a health care system, and then let's pretend that those who challenge you on that and point out the Grand Canyon of a difference are really just "nit-picking" and then let's pretend - and ironically pretend that JPZ is caught up in election fervor - that the clarification I made was just partisan politics. Dear Lord!

Originally posted by YouAreLiedTo
reply to post by AwakeinNM

 

It's been a dictatorship ever since King George II (Bush) took office.

Are you just now realizing all the powers that the Executive Branch is trying to grab up?

It's like hungry hungry hippos with American freedoms this past decade...

They are just nom-nom-nomming away on that great document we hold so dear...

Its actually a seceding monarchy, because they are all related. Been that way since the beginning.

reply to post by stanats


I say we outlaw Insects.
We need stricter laws revolving around how people interact outside their house.
Mandate that everyone purchase and use bug repellant.
Create new Fed Agencies that find and kill all insects.

historylist.wordpress.com...